Skip to content
Pacific Environmental Coalition at a glance

· Public charity

Pacific Environmental Coalition

The mission of the organization is to bring about social change and advances in environmental public policy.

$11M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$6.7M
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 2024.

Environment$10MPublic Benefit$9.7MCivil Rights$550kSocial Science$510kHuman Services$500kPhilanthropy$200k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
  • $250k+4 grants · $11M
$1,000,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$956k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED$6,700,000
FF PAC$3,000,000
REPUBLICAN ACCOUNTABILITY PAC$1,000,000
WORKMONEY INC$500,000
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND$100,000
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%BIG TENT PROJECT FUND: $100k → 11%BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE INC: $100k → 11%FUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE INC: $500k → 12%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $6.7M → 17%SFA FUND INC: $200k → 16%FF PAC: $3.0M → 14%WORKMONEY INC: $1.0M → 17%VOTEVETS PAC: $250k → 12%AMERICANS FOR STRENGTH AND FREEDOM: $500k → 12%PACIFIC ATLANTIC ACTION COALITION: $500k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $100k → 17%ACRONYM: $1.0M → 14%WORKMONEY INC: $500k → 17%PACIFIC ATLANTIC ACTION COALITION: $10k → 14%DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: $1.0M → 14%REPUBLICAN ACCOUNTABILITY PAC: $1.0M → 14%SENATE MAJORITY PAC: $500k → 14%SENATE MAJORITY PAC: $500k → 14%ACRONYM: $500k → 14%SENATE MAJORITY PAC: $250k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $500k → 14%MAJORITY FORWARD: $150k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $100k → 14%HOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $150k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $75k → 14%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $100k → 14%SILVERLINING POLICY INC: $100k → 14%CLEARPATH ACTION FOR CONSERVATIVE CLEAN ENERGY INC: $250k → 14%CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $338k → 14%CLEARPATH ACTION FUND FOR CONSERVATIVE CLEAN ENERGY: $200k → 14%SILVERLINING POLICY INC: $1.0M → 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

MN
IL
WI
NY
OR
CA
DE
TN
DC
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.

24%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.1M · 5 repeat orgs$16M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +367% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
15

Total granted

$5.1M
$5.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+367%
0%

Still filing today

80%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 5% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11M went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCivil RightsCommunity ImprovementSocial ScienceOther
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

  • WI
    WORKMONEY INC
    2× · 2020–2024 · $1.5M · revenue +397%
  • SM
    SENATE MAJORITY PAC
    2× · 2020–2022 · $1.3M
  • SP
    SILVERLINING POLICY INC
    2× · 2020–2022 · $1.1M · revenue -100% · 100% of their budget

Funded once

  • A
    ACRONYM
    one grant, 2020 · $1.5M
  • DD
    DEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER
    one grant, 2020 · $1.0M · revenue -50%
  • PA
    PACIFIC ATLANTIC ACTION COALITION
    one grant, 2020 · $510k · revenue -48%
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
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
2
Partnership for Policy Integrity

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

Environment
3
Climate Innovation Action Inc

To educate policymakers about climate policies generally and to directly advocate for specific legislation on climate change.

Environment
4
Coalition for Green Capital D/B/a American Green Bank Consortium

Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…

Environment
5
Policy Action for a Clean Tomorrow Inc

Clean Tomorrow advances policies that reduce climate emissions by turning policy ambition into action. We work to catalyze rapid change that will accelerate the innovation and growth of clean energy.

Environment
6
Energy Action Fund

Energy action fund advocates for a clean and equitable energy future to tackle the climate crisis.

Environment
7
Environment America Research and Policy Center Inc

The purpose of the corporation is to engage in public education within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code. the corporation may engage in public interest research, policy development, analysis, public education,…

Environment
8
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
9
Clean Future Action Fund Inc

To educate, lobby and advocate for policies that advance clean energy development and deployment.

Environment
10
American Common Ground Council Inc

ConservAmerica is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the development and advancement of market based energy, environmental, and conservation policy.

Environment
11
Evergreen Action

Advocate for and reform to climate policies at the national and state level.

Human Services
12
Cleaner Economy Coalition Inc

Driving american jobs and competitiveness by leveraging our cleaner economy and enabling u.s. manufacturers to lead in advanced energy technologies.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is Americans for Strength and Freedom. 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

17 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. 17 of the 23 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/17
Grantees still filing
6/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FF PAC: $3,000,000 · OtherFF PACWORKMONEY INC: $1,500,000 · OtherWORKMONEY INCACRONYM: $1,500,000 · OtherACRONYMSENATE MAJORITY PAC: $1,250,000 · OtherSENATE MAJORITY PACSILVERLINING POLICY INC: $1,100,000 · OtherSILVERLINING POLICY INCDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: $1,000,000 · OtherDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHERREPUBLICAN ACCOUNTABILITY PAC INC: $1,000,000 · OtherREPUBLICAN ACCOUNTABILITY PAC INCAmericans for Strength and Freedom: $500,000 · OtherCLEARPATH ACTION FOR CONSERVATIVE CLEAN ENERGY INC: $450,000 · Other+6 more: $1,050,000 · Other+6 moreENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $6,700,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $775,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND+1 more: $100,000 · EnvironmentFUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE INC: $500,000 · Community ImprovementHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $150,000 · Community ImprovementPACIFIC ATLANTIC ACTION COALITION: $510,000 · Social ScienceCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $337,500 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $100,000 · Civil Rights
Other$12,350,000Environment$7,575,000Community Improvement$650,000Social Science$510,000Civil Rights$437,500

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $6,700,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetWORKMONEY INC: $1,500,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetACRONYM: $1,500,000 over 1y, 8.1% of budgetSILVERLINING POLICY INC: $1,100,000 over 2y, 100% of budgetDEFENDING DEMOCRACY TOGETHER: $1,000,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND: $775,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetAmericans for Strength and Freedom: $500,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetFUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE INC: $500,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCLEARPATH ACTION FOR CONSERVATIVE CLEAN ENERGY INC: $450,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $337,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMAJORITY FORWARD: $150,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD: $150,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBlueGreen Alliance Inc: $100,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetBig Tent Project Fund: $100,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Sixteen Thirty FundAdvocacy Action Fund …Oakw FundBright Future FundImpetus FundBreakthrough Energy A…Fund for a Better Fut…Future Forward USA Ac…NEO Philanthropy Acti…Our American Future A…America VotesHopewell Fund
Sixteen Thirty FundDC23.4× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Oakw Fund · Bright Future Fund · Impetus Fund · Breakthrough Energy Action Inc · Fund for a Better Future Inc · Future Forward USA Action · NEO Philanthropy Action Fund Inc · Our American Future Action · America Votes · Hopewell Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Pacific Environmental Coalition?

    Find your warmest path to Pacific Environmental Coalition 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 23 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 Pacific Environmental Coalition’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