Skip to content
League of Conservation Voters Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

League of Conservation Voters Inc

The league of conservation voters, inc.

$81M
Granted FY2024still arriving
93
Grants FY2024still arriving
33
States reached
$36M
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.

Environment$262MPublic Benefit$49MCivil Rights$1.5MEmployment$11kRecreation & Sports$11k
02FY2024 · 93 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k19 grants · $319k
  • $50k–250k30 grants · $3.1M
  • $250k+44 grants · $78M
$215,000
Median grant
33
States reached
$37M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LCV VICTORY FUND$36,000,000
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA$6,297,077
FUTURE FORWARD USA$4,000,000
CHISPA AZ PAC$3,568,000
WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS$2,958,000
MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$2,036,750
AMERICA VOTES$2,025,000
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF MICHIGAN PAC$1,500,000
VIRGINIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS$1,319,243
NEVADA CONSERVATION LEAGUE$1,194,000
NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$946,259
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF PA VICTORY FUND$850,000
NEW JERSEY LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC$769,000
NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS FOUNDATION$750,000
FUTURE FREEDOMS$750,000
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 (FY18–24, $531k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 80% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ALIENTO EDUCATION FUND: $10k → 11%IT TAKES PHILLY: $15k → 7%THE AFIYA CENTER: $5k → 14%FAMILIES ANCHORED IN HARMONY: $11k → 15%LUCHA: $5k → 11%RURAL UTAH PROJECT: $30k → 8%SISTER SONG: $30k → 13%BLACK ORGANIZING PROJECT INC: $10k → 10%NORTH CAROLINA PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $50k → 8%VOTE YES TO REFORM THE NEW MEXICO PRC: $300k → 12%GEORGIA INVESTOR ACTION FUND: $50k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEADERSHIP & ADVANCEMENT: $15k → 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

AK
ME
VT
NH
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
UT
CO
NE
VA
MD
DE
AZ
NM
TN
NC
SC
DC
LA
AL
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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$285M · 87 repeat orgs$25M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +84% since the first grant, against +30% for those funded once.

87 repeat relationships: 58 still active in FY2024, 29 since wound down; 34 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

87
108

Total granted

$285M
$18M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+84%
+30%

Still filing today

67%
74%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7.6M 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
EnvironmentCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationPublic 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

  • ML
    MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $10M · revenue +703% · 89% of their budget
  • CV
    Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
    8× · 2017–2024 · $10M · revenue ×17 · 61% of their budget
  • TP
    The Partnership Project Action Fund
    4× · 2017–2020 · $9.8M · revenue +6% · 81% of their budget

Funded once

  • NA
    NEW AMERICAN JOBS FUND
    one grant, 2018 · $2.5M
  • EA
    ENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC
    one grant, 2018 · $2.0M · revenue -17%
  • DJ
    DEMAND JUSTICE
    one grant, 2022 · $1.4M · revenue -88% · 29% of their budget
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
Partnership for Policy Integrity

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

Environment
2
Nature for Justice

To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.

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
Advocates for the Environment Inc

Advocates for the environment is organizaed to educate the public concerning the law and the environment, to provide low-cost legal services to the public and other nonprofit organizations, and to use legal means such as litigation to…

Civil Rights
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 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
7
Maine Conservation Alliance

Maine Conservation Alliance envisions a Maine where nature and people thrive through an inclusive, just democracy, a sustainable economy, and equitable access to nature's benefits - healthy climate, lands, air, and waters. We bring people…

Environment
8
Appalachian Voices

Appalachian voices brings people together to protect the land, air, and water of central and southern appalachia and advance a just transition to a generative and equitable clean energy economy.

Environment
9
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
10
The Oregon League of Conservation Voters Education Fund

The oregon league of conservation voters education fund works turn environmental values into state and local priorities by building political power for the environmental community. olcv-ef, in collaboration with our partners, educates…

Environment
11
American Conservation Coalition Inc

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

Environment
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environment America Inc; the most unlike its peers is William Loveland Foundation. 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

171 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. 171 of the 233 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.

40
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
65
Early backer (in before they grew)
168/171
Grantees still filing
103/171
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LCV VICTORY FUND: $98,425,000 · OtherLCV VICTORY FUNDConservation Voters of Pennsylvania: $10,364,204 · OtherVIRGINIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $8,598,313 · OtherCHISPA AZ PAC: $8,225,000 · Other+108 more: $110,947,138 · Other+108 moreMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $10,482,720 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGU…The Partnership Project Action Fund: $9,800,000 · EnvironmentThe Partnershi…OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND: $2,589,750 · EnvironmentOHIO ENVIRONME…FLORIDA CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $2,161,438 · EnvironmentFLORIDA CONSER…ENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC: $2,000,000 · EnvironmentTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $1,927,000 · EnvironmentTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $1,872,300 · EnvironmentTHE ALASKA CENTER: $1,419,200 · Environment+31 more: $8,004,900 · Environment+31 moreCONSERVATION COLORADO: $9,426,000 · Civil RightsCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $3,728,300 · Civil RightsPRIORITIES USA: $1,830,000 · Civil RightsCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $725,000 · Civil Rights+16 more: $1,471,100 · Civil RightsAmerica Votes: $6,325,000 · Community ImprovementFUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE INC: $1,250,000 · Community ImprovementNORTH MAIN STREET FUND: $330,000 · Community Improvement+9 more: $581,500 · Community ImprovementFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $6,850,000 · Public BenefitDEMAND JUSTICE: $1,370,000 · Public Benefit+5 more: $210,500 · Public BenefitAMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA: $500,000 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $10,500 · Arts & CultureTHINK NEW MEXICO: $300,000 · Human ServicesNORTH CAROLINA A PHILIP RANDOLPH EDUCATIONAL FUND: $50,000 · Human ServicesGeorgia Investor Action Fund Inc: $50,000 · Human ServicesSISTERSONG INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesSTEWARDSHIP UTAH FOUNDATION: $30,000 · Human Services+3 more: $40,500 · Human Services
Other$236,559,655Environment$40,257,308Civil Rights$17,180,400Community Improvement$8,486,500Public Benefit$8,430,500Arts & Culture$510,500Human Services$500,500

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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 budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $10,482,720 over 8y, 89% of budgetConservation Voters of Pennsylvania: $10,364,204 over 8y, 61% of budgetThe Partnership Project Action Fund: $9,800,000 over 4y, 81% of budgetCONSERVATION COLORADO: $9,426,000 over 8y, 97% of budgetVIRGINIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $8,598,313 over 8y, 84% of budgetFUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION: $6,850,000 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetAmerica Votes: $6,325,000 over 3y, 6.4% of budgetNevada Conservation League: $5,755,943 over 8y, 61% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $5,753,657 over 8y, 52% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $4,279,000 over 5y, 59% of budgetCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS: $3,728,300 over 8y, 32% of budgetWASHINGTON CONSERVATION ACTION: $3,641,618 over 8y, 37% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS OF SC: $3,506,500 over 8y, 62% of budgetCONSERVATION MINNESOTA VOTER CENTER INC: $3,406,500 over 7y, 64% of budgetNEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $3,335,375 over 8y, 37% of budgetILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND: $3,328,500 over 7y, 85% of budgetMARYLAND LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $3,180,703 over 7y, 70% of budgetFEDERATION OF STATE CONSERVATION VOTER LEAGUES: $2,978,550 over 6y, 49% of budgetNebraska Conservation Voters: $2,837,000 over 8y, 84% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO: $2,792,175 over 7y, 41% of budgetMONTANA CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $2,692,955 over 8y, 85% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS ACTION FUND INC: $2,617,300 over 8y, 72% of budgetOHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND: $2,589,750 over 8y, 57% of budgetFLORIDA CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $2,161,438 over 6y, 82% of budgetGEORGIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $2,146,000 over 7y, 50% of budgetENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC: $2,000,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetTHE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS: $1,927,000 over 8y, 31% of budgetTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: $1,872,300 over 7y, 62% of budgetPRIORITIES USA: $1,830,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetNRDC ACTION FUND INC: $1,750,000 over 3y, 7.6% of budgetFEDERATION OF STATE CONSERVATION VOTER LEAGUES DBA NJ LEAGUE OF CONS VOTERS: $1,730,547 over 4y, 36% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS FOR IDAHO INC: $1,615,000 over 8y, 64% of budgetTHE ALASKA CENTER: $1,419,200 over 8y, 22% of budgetDEMAND JUSTICE: $1,370,000 over 1y, 29% of budgetFUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE INC: $1,250,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetBBT INC: $1,000,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $1,000,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC: $964,500 over 2y, 47% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $900,000 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetCT LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $893,500 over 6y, 76% of budgetFloridians for a Fair Democracy Inc: $800,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS FOUNDATION: $750,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $725,000 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetFEDERATION OF STATE CONSERVATION VERMONT CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $688,000 over 6y, 100% of budgetConservation Alabama: $567,400 over 8y, 95% of budgetNEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $550,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $510,000 over 3y, 7.1% of budgetAMERICAN INDEPENDENT MEDIA: $500,000 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.

  • Who funds MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania ↗
  • Who funds The Partnership Project Action Fund ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION COLORADO ↗
  • Who funds VIRGINIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ↗
  • Who funds FUTURE FORWARD USA ACTION ↗
  • Who funds America Votes ↗
  • Who funds Nevada Conservation League ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CAROLINA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS ↗
  • Who funds WASHINGTON CONSERVATION ACTION ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION VOTERS OF SC ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION MINNESOTA VOTER CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds NEW YORK LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ↗
  • Who funds ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND ↗
  • Who funds MARYLAND LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds FEDERATION OF STATE CONSERVATION VOTER LEAGUES ↗
  • Who funds Nebraska Conservation Voters ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO ↗
  • Who funds MONTANA CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS ACTION FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND ↗
  • Who funds FLORIDA CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENT AMERICA INC ↗
  • Who funds THE OREGON LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ↗
  • Who funds THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds PRIORITIES USA ↗

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.

Green Advocacy ProjectLeague of Conservatio…Sixteen Thirty FundAmerica VotesTides AdvocacyEnergy Action FundUnited States Energy …All Hands on Deck Net…Clean and Prosperous …New Venture FundAdvocacy Action Fund …Open Society Action F…
Green Advocacy ProjectDC91.4× affinity44 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Green Advocacy Project · League of Conservation Voters Education Fund · Sixteen Thirty Fund · America Votes · Tides Advocacy · Energy Action Fund · United States Energy Foundation · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Clean and Prosperous America · New Venture Fund · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Open Society Action Fund 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 League of Conservation Voters Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from League of Conservation Voters Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 190%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Center for Intercultural Organizing: 28% of income from government
  • Verde Inc: 3% of income from government
  • Fusion Partnership Inc: 3% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
19get no government money at all
17report 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 233 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 League of Conservation Voters’ 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