· Public charity
Mennen Environmental Foundation
The specific and primary purpose of the Mennen Environmental Foundation is to engage in charitable, educational, and scientific activities as a supporting organization, which operates programs to protect, preserve and enchance the natural environment.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $356k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Greater Yellowstone Coalition | $45,000 |
| Save Napa Valley Foundation | $35,000 |
| The Center for Biological Div | $30,500 |
| The Climate Center | $30,000 |
| Center for Coastal Studies | $30,000 |
| Green Corps | $25,000 |
| Green Forests Work | $25,000 |
| Save Our Wild Salmon Coalitio | $25,000 |
| American Rivers | $25,000 |
| Point Blue Conservation Scien | $20,000 |
| EcoFlight | $20,000 |
| Sea Turtle Conservancy | $20,000 |
| Indifly | $15,000 |
| Seacology | $10,000 |
| AmericanCanyonParksFoundation | $8,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 83% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +13% since the first grant, against -35% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $118k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- GYGREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION5× · 2021–2025 · $295k · revenue +60%
- GFGREEN FORESTS WORK INC9× · 2017–2025 · $275k · revenue ×14
- CFCENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES INC5× · 2021–2025 · $151k · revenue +223%
Funded once
- FFFORESTS FOREVER INCone grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue -35%
- FOFRIENDS OF MAINE COASTAL ISLANDS NW Rone grant, 2019 · $18k · revenue +18%
- MFMUSIC FOR THE EARTH INCone grant, 2017 · $14k · revenue -54%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
The mission of wildcoast is to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and address climate change through natural solutions. our staff is dedicated to conserving threatened and endangered coastlines and wildlife in california and mexico.…
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
Organization was able to support efforts for the protection and sustainability of the unique pacific coast environments
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
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…
Endangered Species International is strongly committed to reversing the trend of human-induced species extinction, saving endangered animals, and preserving wild places.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Seacology and the most unlike its peers is Save Napa Valley Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
20 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 20 of the 24 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION ↗
- Who funds Trust For Wildlife Inc ↗
- Who funds GREEN FORESTS WORK INC ↗
- Who funds Sea Turtle Conservancy ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES INC ↗
- Who funds SAVE NAPA VALLEY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR CONSERVATION ADVOCAC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds The Climate Center ↗
- Who funds MANOMET INC ↗
- Who funds POINT REYES BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
- Who funds NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds SEACOLOGY ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds FORESTS FOREVER INC ↗
- Who funds GREEN CORPS INC ↗
- Who funds SAVE OUR WILD SALMON ↗
- Who funds ECOFLIGHT ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF MAINE COASTAL ISLANDS NW R ↗
- Who funds INDIFLY INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds MUSIC FOR THE EARTH INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Mennen Environmental Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Center for Coastal Studies Inc — 26% of income from government
- Manomet Inc — 12% of income from government
- Sea Turtle Conservancy — 1% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Mennen Environmental Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Mennen 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.