Skip to content
Joseph and Marie Field Family Environmental Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Joseph and Marie Field Family Environmental Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$640k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$120k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$2.8MAnimals$655kInternational$160k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $100k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $540k
$50,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL$120,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND$100,000
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL$100,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY$70,000
EARTH JUSTICE$50,000
MISSION POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP$50,000
AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION$50,000
WILDERNESS SOCIETY$35,000
EARTHPERCENT$25,000
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK$20,000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK$10,000
AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 67% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $125k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $70k → 28%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $50k → 7%MISSION POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP: $50k → 12%CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $150k → 7%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $80k → 10%NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $125k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $35k → 28%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $50k → 7%MISSION POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP: $50k → 12%CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $150k → 7%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK: $35k → 10%NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $125k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $35k → 28%MISSION POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP: $50k → 12%CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $150k → 7%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $120k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $35k → 28%CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $100k → 7%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $110k → 17%CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $100k → 7%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $110k → 17%CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $100k → 7%EARTHPERCENT: $25k → 17%WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $50k → 14%EARTH JUSTICE: $50k → 10%EARTHPERCENT: $25k → 17%WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $50k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $50k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $50k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $40k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%LAMBI FUND FOR HAITI: $40k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%LAMBI FUND FOR HAITI: $40k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND: $100k → 17%LAMBI FUND FOR HAITI: $40k → 14%LAMBI FUND FOR HAITI: $40k → 14%WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $35k → 14%WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $35k → 14%WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $35k → 14%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $30k → 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.
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.5M · 15 repeat orgs$50k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +52% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
1

Total granted

$3.5M
$50k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
0%

Still filing today

93%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsInternationalScience & TechOther
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

  • CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $750k · revenue +94%
  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $715k · revenue +26%
  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED
    6× · 2020–2025 · $600k · revenue +121%

Funded once

  • EARTHJUSTICE
    one grant, 2025 · $50k · revenue 0%
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
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
2
Environment Now
—
3
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
4
The Nature Conservancy

The mission of the nature conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.

—
5
International Council On Environmental Economics and Development Union
Human Services
6
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
7
Forest Trends Association

Forest trends works to drive innovation in environmental finance to support resilient ecosystems and communities. through its core initiatives-including forest policy, trade & finance, water, and communities-forest trends develops data,…

Environment
8
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
9
Project Drawdown

Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…

Education
10
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Inc

To provide technical information and scientific research to the forest products industry needed to achieve environmental goals and principles.

—
11
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
12
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is Amboseli Trust for Elephants. 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

15 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. 15 of the 16 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)
15/15
Grantees still filing
9/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $750,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATIONNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $715,000 · EnvironmentNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INCENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $600,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $255,000 · EnvironmentTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETYMISSION POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP USA INC: $150,000 · EnvironmentMISSION POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP USA INC+3 more: $160,000 · Environment+3 moreAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC: $210,000 · AnimalsAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOU…Wildlife Conservation Society: $195,000 · AnimalsWildlife Conservatio…WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $190,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATIO…AMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $60,000 · AnimalsAMBOSELI TRUST FOR E…Rocky Mountain Institute: $100,000 · OtherLAMBI FUND FOR HAITI: $80,000 · OtherTHE LAMBI FUND OF HAITI: $80,000 · InternationalRAINFOREST CONNECTION: $30,000 · Science & Tech
Environment$2,630,000Animals$655,000Other$180,000International$80,000Science & Tech$30,000

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 budgetCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $750,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $715,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $600,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTHE WILDERNESS SOCIETY: $255,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC: $210,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $195,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $190,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetMISSION POSSIBLE PARTNERSHIP USA INC: $150,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $100,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE LAMBI FUND OF HAITI: $80,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NETWORK: $60,000 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetAMBOSELI TRUST FOR ELEPHANTS: $60,000 over 6y, 1.7% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEARTHPERCENT FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetRAINFOREST CONNECTION: $30,000 over 2y, 0.9% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Donor Advised Charita…
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Joseph and Marie Field Family Environmental Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Joseph and Marie Field Family Environmental Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 Joseph and Marie Field Family Environmental Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Joseph and Marie Field Family Environmental Foundation 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 16 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Joseph and Marie Field Family Environmental’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