Skip to content
Holdfast Trust at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Holdfast Trust

Fighting the environmental crisis by raising awareness of the current environmental crisis; protecting biodiversity and climate resilience through land preservation and restoration; defending and supporting democracy and environmental activism; lobbying and other advocacy in support of these issues; and making grants to other nonprofit…

$7.5M
Granted FY2022
17
Grants FY2022
10
States reached
$3.1M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

51% of Holdfast Trust’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Marin Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 4 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year Holdfast Trust named its own grantees at scale: 17 organizations, $7M. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

17
’22
9
’23
9
’24
4
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Environment$77MPublic Benefit$325kCivil Rights$225kHuman Services$75k
02FY2022 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $725k
  • $250k+3 grants · $6.7M
$50,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$1.4B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE CONSERVATION FUND$3,100,000
REWILD$2,900,000
NORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION$700,000
SENATE MAJORITY PAC$100,000
HOUSE MAJORITY PAC$100,000
GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND INC$75,000
FAMILY FRIENDLY ACTION FUND$50,000
BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND INC$50,000
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTER PROJECT INC$50,000
AMERICA VOTES$50,000
CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND$50,000
JANE FONDA CLIMATE PAC$50,000
TAKE ACTION MINNESOTA$50,000
NEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION$50,000
THE VOTER PROJECT$50,000
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 (FY22–22, $75k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND INC: $75k → 14%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

VT
NH
MT
MN
MA
PA
CA
VA
DC
AL
GA
TX
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.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$17M · 4 repeat orgs$22M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +18% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2022, 0 since wound down; 30 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
30

Total granted

$17M
$22M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+14%

Still filing today

75%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9.8M went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentCivil RightsPublic BenefitAnimalsHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • REWILD
    3× · 2022–2025 · $8.6M · revenue +18%
  • THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $6.5M · revenue +9%
  • NORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $1.5M · revenue +59%

Funded once

  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
    one grant, 2025 · $8.5M · revenue 0%
  • SO
    SAVE OUR HOME PLANET ACTION INC
    one grant, 2024 · $6.7M · 87% of their budget
  • WC
    WATTTIME CORPORATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $3.0M · revenue +36%
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
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
2
Environmental Defense Action Fund

To advocate for legislation and policies that protect the environment.

Environment
3
CalWild

The California Wilderness Coalition protects the natural landscapes that make California unique, providing clean air and water, a home to wildlife, and a place for recreation and spiritual renewal.

—
4
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
5
Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Action Network (RAN) works toward a world where the rights and dignity of all communities are respected and where healthy forests, a stable climate and wild biodiversity are protected and celebrated.

Environment
6
Nrdc Action Fund Inc

To build political support for advancing the goals of the natural resources defense council.

—
7
Climate Innovation Action Inc

To educate policymakers about climate policies generally and to directly advocate for specific legislation on climate change.

Environment
8
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
9
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
10
Evergreen Action

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

Human Services
11
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
12
Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tides Advocacy; the most unlike its peers is Galeo Impact Fund Inc. 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

30 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. 30 of the 36 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
30/30
Grantees still filing
18/30
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $56,309,715 · PhilanthropyMARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION+1 more: $400,000 · PhilanthropyTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $13,263,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYSAVE OUR HOME PLANET ACTION INC: $6,651,000 · OtherSAVE OUR HOME PLANET A…+18 more: $1,853,500 · Other+18 moreTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $8,500,000 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FOR PUBL…THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $6,475,000 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION F…NORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION: $1,463,994 · EnvironmentNORTHEAST WILDERNE…RIVER PARTNERS: $1,000,000 · EnvironmentRIVER PARTNERS+3 more: $495,000 · EnvironmentREWILD: $8,550,000 · AnimalsWATTTIME CORPORATION: $3,000,000 · Science & TechFORWARD ACTION FUND: $50,000 · Civil RightsTHE VOTER PROJECT FUND: $50,000 · Civil RightsGLAHR ACTION NETWORK: $25,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: $50,000 · Public BenefitTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $50,000 · Public Benefit
Philanthropy$56,709,715Other$21,767,500Environment$17,933,994Animals$8,550,000Science & Tech$3,000,000Civil Rights$125,000Public Benefit$100,000

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 budgetMARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $56,309,715 over 3y, 11% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $13,263,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetREWILD: $8,550,000 over 3y, 6.4% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $8,500,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetSAVE OUR HOME PLANET ACTION INC: $6,651,000 over 1y, 87% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $6,475,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetWATTTIME CORPORATION: $3,000,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetNORTHEAST WILDERNESS TRUST CORPORATION: $1,463,994 over 2y, 5.7% of budgetRIVER PARTNERS: $1,000,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetCampaign for a Safe and Healthy CA See Schedule O For Complete Name: $500,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE ACTION: $300,000 over 1y, 68% of budgetMobile Baykeeper Inc: $150,000 over 1y, 7.8% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCLIMATE CABINET ACTION: $75,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $75,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFORWARD ACTION FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTAKEACTION MINNESOTA: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBlack Voters Matter Fund Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTHE VOTER PROJECT FUND: $50,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetNEXTGEN CLIMATE ACTION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAmerica Votes: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL VOTER PROJECT INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetSAVE THE YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY: $45,000 over 1y, 29% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER: $40,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetGALEO IMPACT FUND INC: $25,000 over 1y, 8.7% of budgetGLAHR ACTION NETWORK: $25,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetThe Martin Luther King Jr Center For Nonviolent Social Change Inc: $12,500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundTides AdvocacyTides FoundationThe Heising-Simons Ac…Women Donors Network …America VotesGreen Advocacy ProjectNEO Philanthropy Acti…Way to Win Action Fun…Open Society Action F…All Hands on Deck Net…Marin Community Found…
Sixteen Thirty FundDC23.1× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Tides Advocacy · Tides Foundation · The Heising-Simons Action Fund · Women Donors Network Action · America Votes · Green Advocacy Project · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Way to Win Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund Inc · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Marin Community 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 Holdfast Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Holdfast Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Northeast Wilderness Trust Corporation: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
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 36 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Holdfast’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