Skip to content
National Environmental Health Association at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

National Environmental Health Association

The organization's mission is to build, sustain, and empower an effective environmental health workforce

$5.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
148
Grants FY2024still arriving
39
States reached
$237k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Health$6.8MCommunity Improvement$1.4MEnvironment$1.1MFood & Nutrition$1.1MHuman Services$293kPublic Benefit$249kHousing & Shelter$215kCivil Rights$140kOther$0
02FY2024 · 148 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 148 grants below total $5,490,042, the rows itemized in this filing. The $5,781,830 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $291,788 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k42 grants · $312k
  • $10k–50k74 grants · $1.6M
  • $50k–250k32 grants · $3.5M
$18,991
Median grant
39
States reached
$7.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH$236,713
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE$181,933
WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT$160,039
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CENTER FOR FOOD PROTECTION$151,797
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION$149,954
LINCOLNLANCASTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT$147,384
KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES$142,746
HARRIS COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH$126,220
BLUE RIDGE HEALTH DISTRICT VDH$125,492
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE$125,190
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT$119,259
JERSEY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT$118,994
COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE$115,662
Individual grant recipient$109,999
CHATHAM HEALTH DISTRICT$109,852
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 (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 57% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES: $133k → 11%PIMA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: $124k → 15%LINCOLN - LANCASTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT (NE): $173k → 13%IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE: $161k → 8%COEUR D'ALENE TRIBE: $116k → 14%MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: $182k → 14%HARRIS COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH: $126k → 16%SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: $125k → 16%IOWA DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTION AND APPEALS FOOD AND CONSUMER SAFETY BUREAU: $135k → 10%KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: $96k → 20%CHATHAM HEALTH DISTRICT: $163k → 7%RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CENTER FOR FOOD PROTECTION: $152k → 14%GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH: $113k → 13%BOULDER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH (BCPH): $100k → 12%COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: $119k → 12%JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT (WV): $109k → 9%ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION: $150k → 8%HENRY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: $113k → 9%BOONE COUNTY (IL): $110k → 9%JERSEY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: $119k → 10%NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: $107k → 10%BLUE RIDGE HEALTH DISTRICT VDH: $135k → 8%WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT: $196k → 10%SOUTHERN NEVADA HEALTH DISTRICT: $82k → 13%KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $143k → 14%ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES: $93k → 11%PIMA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: $87k → 15%BERKSHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION: $112k → 12%LINCOLNLANCASTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: $147k → 13%MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: $84k → 14%HARRIS COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH: $80k → 16%IOWA DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS APPEALS & LICENSING FOOD SAFETY BUREAU: $91k → 10%CHATHAM HEALTH DISTRICT: $110k → 7%RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: $139k → 14%GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH: $107k → 13%BOULDER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH (BCPH): $92k → 12%COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT: $113k → 12%JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT (WV): $91k → 9%ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION: $126k → 8%BOONE COUNTY: $88k → 9%JERSEY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: $112k → 10%NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: $93k → 10%BLUE RIDGE HEALTH DISTRICT VDH: $125k → 8%WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT: $160k → 10%KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $100k → 14%CITY OF FRISCO: $90k → 5%JERSEY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: $112k → 10%TOWN OF EGREMONT FOR THE BERKSHIRE PUBLIC HEALTH ALLIANCE: $109k → 12%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
VT
WA
ID
MT
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
WY
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
TN
NC
SC
OK
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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.7M · 83 repeat orgs$2.8M to everyone else

83 repeat relationships: 80 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 67 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

83
57

Total granted

$8.7M
$1.3M

Still filing today

0%
5%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.5M went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
HealthEducationOther
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

  • MZ
    MINNESOTA ZOO
    3× · 2022–2024 · $391k
  • WC
    WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
    2× · 2023–2024 · $356k
  • IV
    IL VALLEY ECO DEVT CORP
    3× · 2022–2024 · $343k

Funded once

  • LL
    LINCOLN - LANCASTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
    one grant, 2023 · $173k
  • RI
    RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    one grant, 2022 · $139k
  • BR
    BERSKHIRE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
    one grant, 2022 · $112k
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
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 207 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
3/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MINNESOTA ZOO: $390,837 · Other+196 more: $10,983,321 · Other+196 moreGREEN & HEALTHY HOMES INITIATIVE INC: $30,000 · HealthNORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH BOARD: $10,000 · HealthUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $12,000 · Education
Other$11,374,158Health$40,000Education$12,000

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%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGREEN & HEALTHY HOMES INITIATIVE INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $12,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH BOARD: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Council of State and …Center for Technology…Association of Public…Association of Matern…Association of State …Reach Out and Read IncThe Institute for Int…The Pew Charitable Tr…Investor Protection T…National Foundation f…National Fish and Wil…AARP
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists IncGA36.7× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Inc · Center for Technology and Civic Life · Association of Public Health Laboratories Inc · Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs · Association of State and Territorial Health Officials · Reach Out and Read Inc · The Institute for Intergovernmental Research Inc · The Pew Charitable Trusts · Investor Protection Trust · National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · AARP

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 National Environmental Health Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from National Environmental Health Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Green & Healthy Homes Initiative Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board: 70% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2rely 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 207 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 National Environmental Health Association’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