Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

River Network

RIVER NETWORK grows and strengthens a transformational national network of water, justice and river advocates.

$459k
Granted FY2024still arriving
23
Grants FY2024still arriving
18
States reached
$51k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.

Environment$2.4MFood & Nutrition$14kRecreation & Sports$7k
02FY2024 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 23 grants below total $308,950 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $459,089 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $150,139 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k11 grants · $79k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $179k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $51k
$10,500
Median grant
18
States reached
$3.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Groundwork USA$50,525
Lower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development$44,075
Communities of Love in Action$25,000
National Forest Foundation$14,400
Trust for Conservation Innovation DBA Multiplier$14,000
Children's Forest of Central Oregon$13,300
Native Expeditions Corp$13,300
Amigos Bravos$12,950
The HUUB$10,750
Southern Appalachian Wilderness Stewards$10,500
Selway Bitterroot Frank Church Foundation$10,500
Conservation Northwest$10,500
Urban Promise Ministries Inc$9,500
Tuolumne River Preservation Trust$9,450
San Juan Resource Conservation and Development Council$8,200
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY22–23, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 56% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Nuestra Casa de East Palo Alto: $7k → 8%Healthy Community Resources & Advocacy Inc: $8k → 23%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

AK
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
OH
PA
NJ
RI
CA
CO
MO
KY
MD
AZ
NM
AR
NC
DC
LA
AL
GA
TX
FL

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.7M · 43 repeat orgs$741k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +51% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.

43 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 33 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

43
61

Total granted

$1.7M
$601k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+51%
+21%

Still filing today

88%
84%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $139k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsPublic Safety & DisasterEducationScience & TechOther

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

  • CC
    CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC
    2× · 2018–2020 · $275k · revenue +224%
  • LL
    LIVING LANDS & WATERS
    5× · 2017–2023 · $141k · revenue +62%
  • GROUNDWORK USA INC
    3× · 2017–2024 · $126k · revenue +112%

Funded once

  • WA
    WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE INC
    one grant, 2020 · $31k · revenue -51%
  • BE
    BONNEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue +941%
  • CP
    CITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +19%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
2
Bitterroot Water Partnership

BWP leads reliable and intentional conservation initiatives that promote and provide clean, ample water for people and habitats by working with key partners and our communities

Environment
3
Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is a local nonprofit organization that strives to enhance and restore habitat for fish and wildlife our community and for future generations. Our Board of Directors consists of seven members with…

Environment
4
Boulder Watershed Collective

The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…

Environment
5
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
6
Western Rivers Conservancy

Western rivers conservancy's mission is to protect outstanding river ecosystems in the western united states. continued on schedule o.we acquire land to conserve critical habitat, provide public access for compatible use and enjoyment, and…

Environment
7
Uviation World Water

To leverage education, technology, and innovative solutions to improve river health.

Environment
8
Calapooia Watershed Council

The Calapooia Watershed Council shall promote and sustain the health of the Calapooia Watershed. Stewardship, restoration, education, community involvement, and strategic partnerships are the tools we use in pursuit of this purpose.

Environment
9
Chagrin River Watershed Partners Inc

Preserving and enhancing the scenic and environmental quality of the ecosystem of the chagrin river, lake erie and other ohio watersheds in a manner which assures a sustainable future for people, plants and animals.

Human Services
10
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

To protect and sustain the unique lands, waters, and biodiversity of west marin.

Environment
11
Washington Water Trust

Wwt's mission is to protect and restore water in rivers and streams across washington state. washington water trust restores and protects water in rivers and streams and promotes sustainable freshwater management in washington, and, more…

Environment
12
Tippecanoe Environmental Lake & Watershed Foundation

We work to protect and improve water quality in the lakes and streams of the upper tippecanoe river watershed. we do this by implementing solutions to stop pollution, engaging youth & adults and uniting partners.

Public Safety & Disaster

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lower 9TH Ward Homeownership Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyElementary Literacy TutoringAffordable Housing Developm…Immigrant Worker SupportLocal Food System Organizat…Christian Missionary Organi…Community FoundationsEnvironmental Conservation …
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 24 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%3%<5yr14%6%5–10yr19%29%10–20yr16%39%20–35yr13%21%35–55yr16%2%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%3%<5yr14%4%5–10yr19%35%10–20yr16%40%20–35yr13%16%35–55yr16%2%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.9% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.9%1/118
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,447

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

101 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. 101 of the 118 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
35
Early backer (in before they grew)
99/101
Grantees still filing
69/101
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC — $274,575 · EnvironmentCHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INCLIVING LANDS & WATERS — $141,387 · EnvironmentLIVING LANDS & WATERSMULTIPLIER — $107,000 · EnvironmentMULTIPLIER+54 more — $853,031 · Environment+54 moreTHE COMMONS INC — $49,075 · OtherTHE COMMONS INCMANCOS CONSERVATION DISTRICT — $44,419 · OtherMANCOS CONSERVATION DIST…Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance — $32,010 · OtherTuolumne River Preservat…COMMUNITIES OF LOVE IN ACTION — $25,000 · OtherWILD ALABAMA INC — $23,182 · OtherAmigos Bravos Inc — $22,950 · OtherUpper Arkansas Soil Conservation District — $20,000 · Other+33 more — $301,647 · Other+33 moreGROUNDWORK USA INC — $125,525 · Community ImprovementGROUNDWORK U…THE HUUB INC — $68,750 · Community ImprovementTHE HUUB INCCahaba River Society Inc — $20,000 · Community ImprovementCahaba River…GROUNDWORK DENVER INC — $10,000 · Community ImprovementJUNCTION COALITION — $10,000 · Community ImprovementNEIGHBORSPACE — $10,000 · Community Improvement+3 more — $19,500 · Community Improvement+3 moreCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC — $25,000 · Recreation & SportsDiscover Your Northwest — $17,500 · Recreation & SportsNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION — $14,400 · Recreation & SportsNATURECONNECT CENTRAL OREGON — $13,300 · Recreation & SportsThe San Diego River Park Foundation — $11,300 · Recreation & SportsLower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development — $52,075 · Public Safety & DisasterCORAZON LATINO INC — $12,400 · Public Safety & DisasterWest Street Recovery — $6,500 · Public Safety & DisasterLEONA TATE FOUNDATION FOR CHANGE INC — $25,000 · EducationAchieving Community Task Successfully — $25,000 · EducationCALVIN UNIVERSITY — $8,000 · EducationCOMMUNITY AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE INC — $48,345 · Food & Nutrition
Environment$1,375,993Other$518,283Community Improvement$263,775Recreation & Sports$81,500Public Safety & Disaster$70,975Education$58,000Food & Nutrition$48,345

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC — $274,575 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetLIVING LANDS & WATERS — $141,387 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetGROUNDWORK USA INC — $125,525 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetMULTIPLIER — $107,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTHE HUUB INC — $68,750 over 3y, 12% of budgetLower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development — $52,075 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetTHE COMMONS INC — $49,075 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetCOMMUNITY AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE INC — $48,345 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE LOS ANGELES RIVER — $43,858 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetFlint River Watershed Coalition — $43,400 over 2y, 14% of budgetTHE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA — $38,475 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetCHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC — $36,800 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWatershed Management Group Inc — $35,036 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetCOALITION FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WATERSHED — $34,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetTuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance — $32,010 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetWATERKEEPER ALLIANCE INC — $30,575 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWest Atlanta Watershed Alliance — $30,200 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetBONNEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION — $30,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetPASSAIC RIVER COALITION INC — $28,231 over 3y, 10% of budgetCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC — $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLEONA TATE FOUNDATION FOR CHANGE INC — $25,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetAchieving Community Task Successfully — $25,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetBuffalo Bayou Partnership Inc — $23,616 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWILD ALABAMA INC — $23,182 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetAmigos Bravos Inc — $22,950 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetST JOHNS RIVERKEEPER INC — $22,755 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetKeep Georgia Beautiful Foundation Inc — $20,050 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetPUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE — $20,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetCahaba River Society Inc — $20,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetKENTUCKY WATERWAYS ALLIANCE INC — $19,376 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetONONDAGA ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE INC — $18,500 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetTHE DIGDEEP RIGHT TO WATER PROJECT — $18,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDiscover Your Northwest — $17,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSALMON VALLEY STEWARDSHIP INC — $17,500 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetTHE JOHN BARTRAM ASSOCIATION — $17,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetDuwamish River Cleanup Coalition - TAG — $15,332 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE LOWER OLENTANGY WATERSHED FLOW — $14,520 over 2y, 8.1% of budgetNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION — $14,400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFriends of the Inyo — $14,300 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetCURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFIT — $14,285 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetNEW MEXICO WILDERNESS ALLIANCE — $14,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNATURECONNECT CENTRAL OREGON — $13,300 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetMUSCONETCONG WATERSHED ASSOCIATION — $13,207 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetTRUCKEE RIVER FOUNDATION — $13,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetVerde Inc — $12,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCORAZON LATINO INC — $12,400 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetKERN RIVER CONSERVANCY — $12,285 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetGlacier Peak Institute — $11,304 over 1y, 3.1% of budget
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.

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.

National Fish and Wil…PatagoniaorgThe Nature ConservancyNational Forest Found…The Rose Foundation f…Resources Legacy FundWindward FundAmerican Rivers IncThe Keith Campbell Fo…National Wildlife Fed…Environmental Defense…United States Energy …
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC47.8× affinity32 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The Nature Conservancy · National Forest Foundation · The Rose Foundation for Communities the Environment · Resources Legacy Fund · Windward Fund · American Rivers Inc · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc · National Wildlife Federation · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · United States Energy 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 River Network 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%1%4%8%15%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • Bonneville Environmental Foundation — 100% of income from government
  • Luckiamute Watershed Council — 100% of income from government
  • Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council — 49% of income from government
  • Curry Watersheds Nonprofit — 47% of income from government
  • Chesapeake Conservancy Inc — 27% of income from government
  • Musconetcong Watershed Association — 14% of income from government
  • Groundwork Somerville Inc — 12% of income from government
  • The Huub Inc — 4% of income from government
  • Verde Inc — 3% of income from government
  • Groundwork Jacksonville Inc — 3% of income from government
  • Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc — 2% of income from government
  • Tualatin Riverkeepers Inc — 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
30report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
2rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 118 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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