· Public charity
Health Care Without Harm
The mission of HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARM (hcwh) is to transform health care worldwide so that it reduces its environmental footprint, becomes a community anchor for sustainability and a leader in the global movement for environmental health and justice.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $87,823 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,055,153 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,967,330 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $6k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $82k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOCIAL GOOD FUND - CLIMATE AND HEALTH ALLIANCE | $25,000 |
| PRACTICE GREENHEALTH | $22,864 |
| MUDBONE GROWN LLC | $13,334 |
| SOCIETY OF NATIVE NATIONS | $10,625 |
| OREGON CLIMATE AND AGRICULTURE NETWORK | $10,000 |
| EMERALD CITIES COLLABORATIVES | $6,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–17, $65k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $2.0M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK
Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK
Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK
Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK
Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK
Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 100% of Health Care Without Harm’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 72% of the giving stays in VA; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +19% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- ECECOLOGY CENTER2× · 2017–2018 · $121k · revenue +70%
ECOTRUST3× · 2018–2022 · $99k · revenue +19%- CHCOMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PARTNERS4× · 2017–2020 · $70k · revenue +16%
Funded once
GROUNDWORK USA INCone grant, 2022 · $167k · revenue -40%- FOFRIENDS OF THE EARTHone grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +14%
- CFCENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTone grant, 2022 · $90k · revenue -66%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…
To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.
DC Greens advances health equity by building a just and resilient food system.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Eastern national promotes the public's understanding and support of america's national parks and other public trust partners by providing quality educational experiences, products and services.
To cultivate leaders and community partnerships to advance environmental justice.
The mission of cbe is to build people's power in california's communities of color and low income communities to achieve environmental health and justice by preventing and reducing pollution and building green, healthy and sustainable…
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Society of Native Nations. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 22 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds PRACTICE GREENHEALTH ↗
- Who funds GROUNDWORK USA INC ↗
- Who funds ECOLOGY CENTER ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE EARTH ↗
- Who funds ECOTRUST ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds THIRD SECTOR NEW ENGLAND INC ↗
- Who funds Science & Environmental Health Network ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds Chicago Food Policy Action Council ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL GOOD FUND INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds Emerald Cities Collaborative Inc ↗
- Who funds GIVE2ASIA ↗
- Who funds Cascade Pacific RC&D Area ↗
- Who funds OREGON FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds SOCIETY OF NATIVE NATIONS ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Health Care Without Harm funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Oregon Food Bank — 21% of income from government
- Ecotrust — 14% of income from government
- Third Sector New England Inc — 3% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.