Skip to content
Health Care Without Harm at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$2.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$2.8MEnvironment$577kCommunity Improvement$244kFood & Nutrition$214kPhilanthropy$65kPublic Benefit$36kInternational$26k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $87,823, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,055,153 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,967,330 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $82k
$13,334
Median grant
5
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Tides Center: $65k → 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

IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
IA
CA
VA
DC
TX

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.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$779k · 40% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK

South Asia$538k · 27% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK

East Asia and the Pacific$213k · 11% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK

South America$204k · 10% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK

Sub-Saharan Africa$183k · 9% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK

India$50k · 3% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: ORGANIZATION SUPPORT AND PROGRAM MISSION WORK

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. 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 100% of Health Care Without Harm’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 72% of the giving stays in VA; by stated purpose, 0%.

Health Care Without Harmlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
$3.2M · 8 repeat orgs$594k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against +14% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
9

Total granted

$3.2M
$570k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+14%

Still filing today

88%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementEnvironmentHealthFood & NutritionPublic BenefitOther
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

  • EC
    ECOLOGY CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $121k · revenue +70%
  • ECOTRUST
    3× · 2018–2022 · $99k · revenue +19%
  • CH
    COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PARTNERS
    4× · 2017–2020 · $70k · revenue +16%

Funded once

  • GROUNDWORK USA INC
    one grant, 2022 · $167k · revenue -40%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +14%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
    one grant, 2022 · $90k · revenue -66%
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
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
2
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
3
Coalition for Green Capital D/B/a American Green Bank Consortium

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…

Environment
4
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
5
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
6
Environment Next Inc

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…

Environment
7
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
8
Dc Greens Inc

DC Greens advances health equity by building a just and resilient food system.

Community Improvement
9
Cdp North America Inc

Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…

Environment
10
Cascade Climate Inc

To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.

Environment
11
Common Future

Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…

Community Improvement
12
Climate Leadership Council Inc

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.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Usa Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

18 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. 18 of the 22 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
9/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PRACTICE GREENHEALTH: $2,697,305 · HealthPRACTICE GREENHEALTH+1 more: $70,000 · HealthGROUNDWORK USA INC: $166,708 · Community ImprovementTHIRD SECTOR NEW ENGLAND INC: $67,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY PARTNERS: $36,000 · Community ImprovementCascade Pacific RC&D Area: $20,000 · Community ImprovementSOCIETY OF NATIVE NATIONS: $10,625 · Community ImprovementECOLOGY CENTER: $121,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF THE EARTH: $100,000 · EnvironmentScience & Environmental Health Network: $65,000 · EnvironmentECOTRUST: $98,900 · OtherECOTRUSTGREENHEALTH MANAGEMENT: $97,000 · OtherGREENHEAL…CENTER FOR GOOD FOOD PURCHASING CO COMMUNITY PARTNERS: $30,000 · OtherCENTER FO…GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: $25,000 · OtherGEORGE MA…OREGON FOOD BANK: $13,334 · OtherEmerald Cities Collaborative Inc: $36,000 · OtherEmerald C…GIVE2ASIA: $25,500 · OtherGIVE2ASIA+1 more: $10,000 · OtherCENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $90,000 · Food & NutritionChicago Food Policy Action Council: $45,000 · Food & NutritionTIDES CENTER: $64,780 · Human ServicesSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $40,000 · Education
Health$2,767,305Community Improvement$300,333Environment$286,000Other$335,734Food & Nutrition$135,000Human Services$64,780Education$40,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPRACTICE GREENHEALTH: $2,697,305 over 7y, 23% of budgetGROUNDWORK USA INC: $166,708 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetECOLOGY CENTER: $121,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE EARTH: $100,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetECOTRUST: $98,900 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $90,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PARTNERS: $70,000 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetTHIRD SECTOR NEW ENGLAND INC: $67,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetScience & Environmental Health Network: $65,000 over 3y, 5.5% of budgetTIDES CENTER: $64,780 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetChicago Food Policy Action Council: $45,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetSOCIAL GOOD FUND INC: $40,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY PARTNERS: $36,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEmerald Cities Collaborative Inc: $36,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetGIVE2ASIA: $25,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCascade Pacific RC&D Area: $20,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetOREGON FOOD BANK: $13,334 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOCIETY OF NATIVE NATIONS: $10,625 over 1y, 1.4% 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.

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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA3.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Health Care Without Harm funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Health Care Without Harm. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • Oregon Food Bank: 21% of income from government
  • Ecotrust: 14% of income from government
  • Third Sector New England Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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.

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 22 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 Health Care Without Harm’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