Skip to content
Green Advocacy Project at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Green Advocacy Project

To accelerate the transition to an economy based on renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

$9.7M
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$9.7M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Environment$12MPublic Benefit$6.4MCivil Rights$350kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$9,654,900
Median grant
1
States reached
$395k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
See Grant Statement$9,654,900
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–18, $89k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WE OWN IT: $89k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IA
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
CO
NE
MO
KY
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
LA
GA
TX
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34M · 50 repeat orgs$6.6M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +97% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

50 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 49 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

50
122

Total granted

$34M
$6.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+97%
+26%

Still filing today

60%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementPublic BenefitHuman ServicesFood & NutritionOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • CF
    CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION
    4× · 2018–2021 · $1.8M · revenue +97%
  • LO
    LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    3× · 2018–2020 · $1.3M · revenue +144%
  • FW
    FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND
    4× · 2018–2021 · $911k · revenue +275%

Funded once

  • AV
    AMERICA VOTES ACTION FUND
    one grant, 2020 · $250k
  • RL
    RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP NM
    one grant, 2018 · $206k
  • TV
    THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER
    one grant, 2020 · $202k · revenue -34%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Electoral Collective Action

Electoral Collective Action coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
2
California Environmental Voters Education Fund

ENVIROVOTERS ED FUND is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the quality of the environment for all Californians. ENVIROVOTERS ED FUND works to build the capacity of environmental organizations by developing and providing…

Environment
3
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.

Education
4
American Conservation Coalition Inc

The american conservation coalition inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to building the conservative environmental movement.

Environment
5
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
6
Climate Equity Action Fund

The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…

Environment
7
Electoral Collective

Electoral Collective coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
8
Federation of State Conservation Voter Leagues

Maine Conservation Voters plays a critical role in turning public support for conservation into new laws to protect our air, land, water and wildlife. As a result of successful strategies, a focused policy agenda and sharp accountability…

—
9
Evergreen Action

Advocate for and reform to climate policies at the national and state level.

Human Services
10
Cleaner Economy Coalition Inc

Driving american jobs and competitiveness by leveraging our cleaner economy and enabling u.s. manufacturers to lead in advanced energy technologies.

—
11
Policy Action for a Clean Tomorrow Inc

Clean Tomorrow advances policies that reduce climate emissions by turning policy ambition into action. We work to catalyze rapid change that will accelerate the innovation and growth of clean energy.

Environment
12
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Yes for Portland Clean Energy Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

87 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 87 of the 173 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

9
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
36
Early backer (in before they grew)
77/87
Grantees still filing
53/87
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

See Grant Statement: $21,992,065 · OtherSee Grant Statement+124 more: $10,446,950 · Other+124 moreCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $1,786,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR VO…LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $1,265,000 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CON…CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND INC: $380,000 · Civil RightsCHESAPEAKE CL…NEW VIRGINIA MAJORITY: $350,000 · Civil RightsNEW VIRGINIA …THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $202,000 · Civil Rights+13 more: $853,000 · Civil Rights+13 moreFOOD & WATER ACTION FUND: $911,200 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $325,000 · EnvironmentEarthworks Action Fund: $275,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $140,000 · EnvironmentCounterspark Inc: $100,000 · EnvironmentTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $100,000 · Environment+10 more: $436,000 · EnvironmentSTATE DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND: $250,000 · Public BenefitTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $200,000 · Public BenefitCITIZEN VOICE: $175,000 · Public BenefitAlaska Public Interest Research Group: $70,000 · Public BenefitCIVIC INNOVATION WORKS INC: $50,000 · Public BenefitWORKER POWER: $75,000 · Community ImprovementNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL: $50,000 · Community ImprovementMISSOURI WIN: $50,000 · Community ImprovementARKANSAS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS: $35,000 · Community ImprovementCAUSE ACTION FUND: $25,000 · Community ImprovementTEXAS REAL ESTATE ADVOCACY AND DEFENSE COALITION: $25,000 · Community ImprovementWE OWN IT INC: $88,577 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $40,000 · PhilanthropyROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND INC: $25,000 · Philanthropy
Other$32,439,015Civil Rights$4,836,000Environment$2,287,200Public Benefit$745,000Community Improvement$260,000Human Services$88,577Philanthropy$65,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $1,786,000 over 4y, 13% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $1,265,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetFOOD & WATER ACTION FUND: $911,200 over 4y, 18% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $745,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND INC: $380,000 over 4y, 90% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $368,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNEW VIRGINIA MAJORITY: $350,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $325,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetEarthworks Action Fund: $275,000 over 4y, 100% of budgetSTATE DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND: $250,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetTHE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER: $202,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $200,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL VOTER PROJECT INC: $194,700 over 4y, 6.6% of budgetCITIZEN VOICE: $175,000 over 2y, 79% of budgetSOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY ACTION FUND: $160,000 over 2y, 59% of budgetBOLD ALLIANCE INC: $150,000 over 3y, 24% of budgetTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT: $150,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetYes for Portland Clean Energy Fund: $150,000 over 1y, 44% of budgetWESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION: $150,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetVOTE REV ACTION FUND: $150,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetConservation Voters of Pennsylvania: $145,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $140,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetNebraska Conservation Voters: $125,000 over 3y, 14% of budgetKENTUCKIANS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH INC: $100,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetClean Columbus: $100,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetLOUISIANA ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATORS: $100,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetCounterspark Inc: $100,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetSAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS: $100,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetNEVADANS FOR SECURE ELECTIONS: $100,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetFloridians for a Fair Democracy Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetMOVE TEXAS ACTION FUND: $100,000 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetVOTO LATINO INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $100,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetCOUNT MI VOTE: $100,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetWE OWN IT INC: $88,577 over 1y, 13% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS OF SC: $85,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetTEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK: $82,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetCONSERVATION COLORADO: $80,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $75,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetWORKER POWER: $75,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetOil Change USA: $75,000 over 1y, 54% of budgetENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC: $75,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTexas Campaign for the Environment: $72,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetAlaska Public Interest Research Group: $70,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetCOLORADO PEOPLE'S ACTION: $70,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetOHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND: $70,000 over 1y, 6.6% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS FOR IDAHO INC: $55,000 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetIOWA CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ACTION FUND: $50,000 over 2y, 6.6% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION ↗
  • Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds FOOD & WATER ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds TIDES ADVOCACY ↗
  • Who funds CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds SIERRA CLUB ↗
  • Who funds NEW VIRGINIA MAJORITY ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds Earthworks Action Fund ↗
  • Who funds STATE DEMOCRACY ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE VOTER PARTICIPATION CENTER ↗
  • Who funds TAKEACTION MINNESOTA ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL VOTER PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds CITIZEN VOICE ↗
  • Who funds SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds BOLD ALLIANCE INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds Yes for Portland Clean Energy Fund ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN CONSERVATION ACTION ↗
  • Who funds VOTE REV ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
  • Who funds Nebraska Conservation Voters ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

League of Conservatio…Sixteen Thirty FundTides AdvocacyAmerica VotesAll Hands on Deck Net…Energy Action FundNorth FundWay to Win Action Fun…NEO Philanthropy Acti…Open Society Action F…Advocacy Action Fund …Women Donors Network …
League of Conservation Voters IncDC91.4× affinity44 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: League of Conservation Voters Inc · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Advocacy · America Votes · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Energy Action Fund · North Fund · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Women Donors Network Action

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Green Advocacy Project funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Green Advocacy Project. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 90%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Columbia Riverkeeper: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
9get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Green Advocacy Project?

Find your warmest path to Green Advocacy Project through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 173 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Green Advocacy Project’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home