Skip to content
River Network at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

River Network

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

$3.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
49
Grants FY2025still arriving
24
States reached
$358k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Environment$2.4MFood & Nutrition$14kRecreation & Sports$7k
02FY2025 · 49 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 49 grants below total $3,170,479, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,326,962 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $156,483 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k12 grants · $79k
  • $10k–50k20 grants · $529k
  • $50k–250k15 grants · $1.9M
  • $250k+2 grants · $707k
$33,888
Median grant
24
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
City of Hermiston$358,482
City of Shoreline$348,221
City of Seattle$248,299
Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation$177,317
Kanu I Ka Pono Inc$156,199
City and County of Honolulu$154,242
PROTECTORES DE CUENCAS INC$152,057
One Truckee River$139,024
Sovereign EarthWorks$138,768
Providence Neighborhood Planting Program$130,601
Groundwork USA Inc$126,543
City of Hillsboro$115,455
Create ayA$68,478
Rock River Coalition Inc$68,357
Perch Comer$62,045
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 (FY22–25, $49k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 87% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Nuestra Casa de East Palo Alto: $7k → 8%Urban Neighborhood Initiatives Inc: $34k → 21%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
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
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
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.

39%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.2M · 52 repeat orgs$3.4M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

52 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2025, 36 since wound down; 33 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

52
65

Total granted

$2.2M
$627k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+21%

Still filing today

87%
82%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 12% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.8M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationRecreation & SportsPublic Safety & DisasterHuman ServicesOther
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

  • CC
    CHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC
    2× · 2018–2020 · $275k · revenue +224%
  • GROUNDWORK USA INC
    4× · 2017–2025 · $252k · revenue +112%
  • LL
    LIVING LANDS & WATERS
    5× · 2017–2023 · $141k · revenue +62%

Funded once

  • WA
    WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE INC
    one grant, 2020 · $31k · revenue -51%
  • BE
    BONNEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue +941%
  • AC
    Achieving Community Task Successfullygraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +173%
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
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Groundwork Usa Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

116 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 116 of the 151 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)
43
Early backer (in before they grew)
114/116
Grantees still filing
79/116
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF HERMISTON: $358,482 · OtherCITY OF HERMISTONCITY OF SHORELINE: $348,221 · OtherCITY OF SHORELINESEATTLE PUBLIC LIBRARY: $248,299 · OtherSEATTLE PUBLIC LIBRARYNORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATION: $177,317 · OtherNORTHWESTERN BAND OF THE SHOSHONE NATIONCity and County of Honolulu: $154,242 · OtherCity and County of HonoluluSOVEREIGN EARTHWORKS: $138,768 · OtherCity of Hillsboro: $115,455 · Other+57 more: $1,210,652 · Other+57 moreCHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $274,575 · EnvironmentCHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INCPROTECTORES DE CUENCAS INC: $152,057 · EnvironmentPROTECTORES DE CUENCAS INCTRUCKEE RIVER FOUNDATION: $152,024 · EnvironmentTRUCKEE RIVER FOUNDATIONLIVING LANDS & WATERS: $141,387 · EnvironmentLIVING LANDS & WATERSMULTIPLIER: $107,000 · EnvironmentMULTIPLIERRock River Coalition Inc: $68,357 · Environment+57 more: $951,735 · Environment+57 moreGROUNDWORK USA INC: $252,068 · Community ImprovementTHE HUUB INC: $68,750 · Community ImprovementCahaba River Society Inc: $20,000 · Community Improvement+6 more: $49,500 · Community ImprovementKanu I Ka Pono Inc: $156,199 · EducationLEONA TATE FOUNDATION FOR CHANGE INC: $40,000 · EducationAchieving Community Task Successfully: $25,000 · EducationCALVIN UNIVERSITY: $18,000 · EducationWISDOM INSTITUTE: $10,000 · EducationPROVIDENCE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANTING PROGRAM: $130,601 · Arts & CultureLower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement and Development: $60,825 · Public Safety & DisasterANTHROPOCENE ALLIANCE: $45,736 · Public Safety & DisasterCORAZON LATINO INC: $12,400 · Public Safety & DisasterWest Street Recovery: $6,500 · Public Safety & DisasterCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · Recreation & SportsNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $20,400 · Recreation & SportsNATURECONNECT CENTRAL OREGON: $19,000 · Recreation & SportsDiscover Your Northwest: $17,500 · Recreation & SportsThe San Diego River Park Foundation: $11,300 · Recreation & Sports
Other$2,751,436Environment$1,847,135Community Improvement$390,318Education$249,199Arts & Culture$130,601Public Safety & Disaster$125,461Recreation & Sports$93,200

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 budgetCHESAPEAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $274,575 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetGROUNDWORK USA INC: $252,068 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetPROTECTORES DE CUENCAS INC: $152,057 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetTRUCKEE RIVER FOUNDATION: $152,024 over 3y, 42% of budgetLIVING LANDS & WATERS: $141,387 over 5y, 0.9% 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: $60,825 over 3y, 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 budgetTuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance: $41,443 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetLEONA TATE FOUNDATION FOR CHANGE INC: $40,000 over 3y, 4.7% 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 budgetGreen Interchange Inc: $35,403 over 1y, 14% 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 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 budgetAmigos Bravos Inc: $28,450 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetPASSAIC RIVER COALITION INC: $28,231 over 3y, 10% of budgetAchieving Community Task Successfully: $25,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetCITY PARKS FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKENTUCKY WATERWAYS ALLIANCE INC: $24,788 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetBlackstone Watershed Collaborative Inc: $23,789 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetBuffalo Bayou Partnership Inc: $23,616 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWILD ALABAMA INC: $23,182 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetST JOHNS RIVERKEEPER INC: $22,755 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetButte Environmental Council: $22,280 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetNATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION: $20,400 over 2y, 0.0% 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 budgetNEW MEXICO WILDERNESS ALLIANCE: $20,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCURRY WATERSHEDS NONPROFIT: $19,605 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetNATURECONNECT CENTRAL OREGON: $19,000 over 2y, 1.8% 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 budgetCALVIN UNIVERSITY: $18,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSALMON VALLEY STEWARDSHIP INC: $17,500 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetDiscover Your Northwest: $17,500 over 2y, 0.3% 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 budgetFriends of the Inyo: $14,300 over 2y, 0.9% 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.

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%1%4%8%15%funder's 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
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 151 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 River Network’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