Skip to content
Los Angeles Waterkeeper at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Los Angeles Waterkeeper

LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER's mission is to fight for the health of the region's waterways, and for sustainable, equitable and climate-friendly water supplies.

$481k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$60k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Environment$811kCommunity Improvement$167kHousing & Shelter$87kPublic Safety & Disaster$15kYouth Development$15k
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $121k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $360k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PACOIMA BEAUTIFUL$60,000
ACTIVE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY$50,000
HEAL THE BAY$50,000
COUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTH$50,000
CLIMATE RESOLVE$50,000
HOLOS INC$50,000
LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TRUST$50,000
CONSERVATION CORPS OF LONG BEACH$37,500
THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND$25,000
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL SUSTAINABILITY ALLIANCE$18,000
EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE$10,000
STRATEGIC CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZING & POLICY EDUCATION$10,000
DEL AMO ACTION COMMITTEE$10,000
FRIENDS OF THE LOS ANGELES RIVER$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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $177k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%STRATEGIC CONCEPTS IN ORGANIZING & POLICY EDUCATION: $10k → 14%PROYECTO PASTORAL CO PROMESA BOYLE HEIGHTS: $83k → 14%PROYECTO PASTORAL CO PROMESA BOYLE HEIGHTS: $59k → 14%PROYECTO PASTORAL CO PROMESA BOYLE HEIGHTS: $25k → 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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 10 repeat orgs$120k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +74% since the first grant, against +6% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
2

Total granted

$1.5M
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+74%
+6%

Still filing today

90%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90k went to new ones.

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

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

’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentEducationPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • PB
    PACOIMA BEAUTIFUL
    4× · 2021–2025 · $218k · revenue +86%
  • PP
    Proyecto Pastoral
    3× · 2021–2023 · $167k · revenue +51%
  • CC
    CONSERVATION CORPS OF LONG BEACH
    4× · 2022–2025 · $162k · revenue +61%

Funded once

  • LL
    LEGACY LA YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORP
    one grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue +6%
  • MF
    MALIBU FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -77%
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
Los Angeles Waterkeeper

Los angeles waterkeeper's mission is to fight for the health of the region's waterways, and for sustainable, equitable and climate-friendly water supplies.

Environment
2
Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation dba River La

Engage.Protect.Enhance.Weareonamissiontobringpeople,water,andnaturetogetherwhilepursuingasustainablerevitalization of the Los Angeles River corridor.

Community Improvement
3
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
4
League of Women Voters of Los Angeles

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…

—
5
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance

To create a california where balancing economic growth and environmental protection is not only a vision, but also a reality.

—
6
Environmental Health Coalition

The Environmental Health Coalition is dedicated to achieving environmental and social justice. We believe that justice is accomplished by empowered communities acting together to make social change. We organize and advocate to protect…

Environment
7
Environmental Defense Center

The organization protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy and legal action.

Crime & Legal
8
Community Conservation Solutions

Develop integrated and science-based solutions to complex environmental problems to protect natural lands, water, wildlife and human communities.

—
9
North East Trees Inc

In 2024, our work made a lasting impact on both people and the environment. Together with our community, we planted 2,739 new plants and trees, ensuring future shade, cleaner air, and greener neighborhoods. We also cared for 7,442 trees,…

Environment
10
Abundant Housing La

To encourage, advocate for, and support the creation of an equitable and environmentally sustainable region where all current and future Angelenos can afford to live, including through legislation, regulations, and government programs.

—
11
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
12
Rescape California

ReScape addresses climate change by providing a regenerative, nature-based whole systems foundation for landscaping education, workforce development and policy.Foundational to our work is a whole systems watershed framework that…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of the Los Angeles River; the most unlike its peers is Holos 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

16 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. 16 of the 17 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
9/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PACOIMA BEAUTIFUL: $218,333 · EnvironmentPACOIMA BEAUTIFULLos Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust: $162,499 · EnvironmentLos Angeles Neighborhood Land TrustCLIMATE RESOLVE: $162,499 · EnvironmentCLIMATE RESOLVETHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $137,499 · EnvironmentTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDCOUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTH: $75,000 · EnvironmentCOUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTHHEAL THE BAY: $50,000 · EnvironmentHEAL THE BAY+2 more: $20,000 · EnvironmentActive San Gabriel Valley: $208,333 · Community ImprovementActive San Gab…Proyecto Pastoral: $167,499 · Human ServicesProyecto Pas…Strategic Concepts In Organizing & Policy Education: $10,000 · Human ServicesStrategic Co…CONSERVATION CORPS OF LONG BEACH: $162,499 · Youth DevelopmentCONSERVATIO…HOLOS INC: $137,499 · EducationHOLOS INCLA NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL SUSTAINABILITY ALLIANCE: $24,750 · OtherEAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: $10,000 · OtherLEGACY LA YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORP: $15,000 · Crime & LegalMALIBU FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Environment$825,830Community Improvement$208,333Human Services$177,499Youth Development$162,499Education$137,499Other$34,750Crime & Legal$15,000Public Safety & Disaster$15,000

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 budgetPACOIMA BEAUTIFUL: $218,333 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetActive San Gabriel Valley: $208,333 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetProyecto Pastoral: $167,499 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetCONSERVATION CORPS OF LONG BEACH: $162,499 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetLos Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust: $162,499 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetCLIMATE RESOLVE: $162,499 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetHOLOS INC: $137,499 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $137,499 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCOUNCIL FOR WATERSHED HEALTH: $75,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetHEAL THE BAY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLEGACY LA YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORP: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMALIBU FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetDel Amo Action Committee: $10,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE LOS ANGELES RIVER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetEAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

Rockefeller Philanthr…Resources Legacy FundLiberty Hill Foundati…California Community …Weingart FoundationCommunity PartnersThe California Endowm…Water FoundationThe Ahmanson Foundati…The James Irvine Foun…The Annenberg Foundat…Local Initiatives Sup…
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors IncNY18.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Resources Legacy Fund · Liberty Hill Foundation · California Community Foundation · Weingart Foundation · Community Partners · The California Endowment · Water Foundation · The Ahmanson Foundation · The James Irvine Foundation · The Annenberg Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation

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 Los Angeles Waterkeeper funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Los Angeles Waterkeeper. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 17 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Los Angeles Waterkeeper’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