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

· Public charity

Sierra Club

To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; practice and promote responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

$286k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$100k
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 2025.

Environment$8.7MHousing & Shelter$53kInternational$41kCivil Rights$28kPublic Safety & Disaster$24kAnimals$15kRecreation & Sports$10k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $239,226, the rows itemized in this filing. The $285,875 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $46,649 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 $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $73k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $150k
$28,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$152M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WOMEN'S MARCH INC$100,000
JESUS PEOPLE AGAINST POLLUTION$50,000
CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND$35,000
ARKANSAS ADVANCED ENERGY ASSOCIATION$28,000
WV ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL$10,000
MALAMA LEARNING CENTER$8,226
FERIA CALLE$8,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–23, $201k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 83% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%YMCA OF METROPOLITAN DETROIT: $16k → 21%HARAMBEE HOUSE: $15k → 16%YMCA OF INDIANAPOLIS: $10k → 16%YMCA NATIONAL: $10k → 14%BRIDGING THE GAP IN VIRGINIA: $10k → 9%MICAH 68 MISSION: $30k → 17%YMCA OF DETROIT: $10k → 21%PROGRESO LATINO INC: $8k → 14%HARAMBEE HOUSE: $10k → 16%MICAH 68 MISSION: $10k → 17%TIDES CENTER: $15k → 10%RURAL UTAH PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $25k → 8%TRI CITY CDC: $10k → 21%WESTERN CLEAN ENERGY CAMPAIGN - TIDES CENTER: $10k → 12%TIDES FOUNDATION FOR YOUNG FEMINIST FUND: $5k → 17%SOUL TRAK OUTDOORS: $8k → 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

AK
VT
WA
ID
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
WY
SD
IN
PA
NJ
CT
RI
CA
UT
CO
NE
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
AZ
NM
KS
AR
NC
SC
DC
HI
LA
MS
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.
$3.3M · 68 repeat orgs$5.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +56% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

68 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 66 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

68
247

Total granted

$3.3M
$5.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
+23%

Still filing today

82%
81%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 8% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $221k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementEducationHuman ServicesCivil RightsPublic BenefitOther
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

  • G
    GreenLatinos
    7× · 2017–2024 · $136k · revenue ×15
  • Earth Island Institute Inc
    4× · 2019–2022 · $131k · revenue +171%
  • RA
    Rainforest Action Network
    6× · 2019–2024 · $84k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • CF
    CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND
    one grant, 2020 · $1.0M · revenue -18%
  • RT
    RISE TO THRIVE
    one grant, 2022 · $225k
  • GI
    GRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $200k · revenue +392%
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
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
3
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.

Education
4
Nature for Justice

To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.

Environment
5
Science & Environmental Health Network

In service to communities, the earth and future generations, the science and environmental health network forges science, ethics, and law into tools for action.

Environment
6
One Earth Philanthropy

One Earth connects thinkers, doers, activists, and knowledge holders from around the world to solve humanity's greatest ecological challenges--together. Our belief is simple: The solutions to the climate crisis already exist. By connecting…

Environment
7
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

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

Environment
8
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
9
350PDX

Building a diverse grassroots movement to address the causes of climate disruption through justice-based solutions by inspiring, training and mobilizing people to act.

Environment
10
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
11
Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest

The environmental law & policy center (elpc) is the midwest's leading public interest environmental legal advocacy and ecobusiness innovation organization, and among the nation's leaders. we develop and lead successful strategic…

Environment
12
Partnership for Policy Integrity

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

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc; the most unlike its peers is Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife. 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

277 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. 277 of the 327 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
104
Early backer (in before they grew)
265/277
Grantees still filing
191/277
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CENTRO PARA LA CONSERVACION DEL PAISAJE: $231,400 · OtherCENTRO PARA LA CONSERVACION DEL PAISAJERISE TO THRIVE: $225,000 · OtherRISE TO THRIVEINICIATIVA ECODES BAHIA JOBOS: $110,000 · Other+93 more: $2,617,261 · Other+93 moreGreenLatinos: $135,500 · EnvironmentGreenLatinosEarth Island Institute Inc: $130,999 · EnvironmentEarth Island Institute IncRainforest Action Network: $84,000 · EnvironmentMN350: $78,000 · EnvironmentDINE CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT: $69,500 · Environment+62 more: $1,534,625 · Environment+62 moreCENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: $1,000,000 · Public BenefitCENTER FOR AMER…Earthworks: $37,000 · Public Benefit+4 more: $69,000 · Public Benefit+4 moreCoalicion Pro Corredor Ecologico Del Noreste Inc: $132,400 · Community ImprovementCoalicion…SOUTHERN SECTOR RISING: $76,765 · Community ImprovementSOUTHERN …WEST MARION INC: $72,500 · Community ImprovementWEST MARI…APRODEC INC: $70,000 · Community ImprovementAPRODEC I…MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $65,000 · Community ImprovementMOVEMENT …BOLD EDUCATION FUND INC: $55,600 · Community ImprovementBOLD EDUC…NEW ALPHA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $51,100 · Community ImprovementNEW ALPHA…CAMBIO PR INC: $30,000 · Community ImprovementVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $30,000 · Community ImprovementNATIVE MOVEMENT: $30,000 · Community ImprovementHASER Inc: $25,000 · Community ImprovementKEEP GROWING DETROIT: $23,200 · Community Improvement+1 more: $15,000 · Community ImprovementNORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $137,644 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $68,650 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS INC: $47,983 · PhilanthropyCALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $43,197 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATION: $28,800 · Philanthropy+1 more: $10,000 · PhilanthropyGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $200,000 · InternationalUS Human Rights Network: $41,000 · InternationalPHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: $22,500 · InternationalCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $50,000 · Civil RightsCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND INC: $35,000 · Civil RightsWOMEN'S ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION: $32,331 · Civil RightsLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $30,000 · Civil RightsACLU Foundation of Texas Inc: $27,500 · Civil RightsFLORIDA RISING TOGETHER INC: $20,000 · Civil RightsUNITED WE DREAM NETWORK INC: $20,000 · Civil RightsRIGHT TO THE CITY ALLIANCE: $15,000 · Civil RightsMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT ACTION: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Other$3,183,661Environment$2,032,624Public Benefit$1,106,000Community Improvement$676,565Philanthropy$336,274International$263,500Civil Rights$239,831

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%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND: $1,000,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetGRASSROOTS INTERNATIONAL INC: $200,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetNORTH VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $137,644 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGreenLatinos: $135,500 over 7y, 3.9% of budgetEarth Island Institute Inc: $130,999 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetTexas Conservation Alliance: $100,000 over 1y, 9.4% of budgetRainforest Action Network: $84,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetTHE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $82,696 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMN350: $78,000 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetSOUTHERN SECTOR RISING: $76,765 over 1y, 24% of budgetINDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK: $76,099 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetWEST MARION INC: $72,500 over 2y, 5.0% of budgetDINE CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT: $69,500 over 4y, 8.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY INITIATIVES: $68,650 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE: $66,000 over 3y, 2.5% of budgetEL PUENTE DE WILLIAMSBURG INC: $65,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetMOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER: $65,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA CITIZEN ACTION GROUP: $63,000 over 1y, 24% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $62,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $61,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWest Harlem Environmental Action Inc: $56,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetBOLD EDUCATION FUND INC: $55,600 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetGWICHIN STEERING COMMITTEE: $55,000 over 3y, 9.9% of budgetGREENFAITH INC: $50,478 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRENEWABLE ENERGY WILDLIFE INSTITUTE: $50,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS INC: $47,983 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTHE ROSE FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITIES THE ENVIRONMENT: $47,633 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWest Virginia Environmental Council: $46,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetLawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: $44,900 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHEALTHY GULF: $44,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetCALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $43,197 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVOICES FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE: $42,500 over 3y, 4.5% of budgetPROGRESSNOW COLORADO: $42,000 over 3y, 5.8% of budgetHIP HOP CAUCUS EDUCATION FUND: $40,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetBOLD ALLIANCE INC: $40,000 over 1y, 9.6% of budgetGLOBAL WARMING EXPRESS: $39,852 over 3y, 88% of budgetMICAH SIX EIGHT MISSION: $39,500 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetEarthworks: $37,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetOutward Bound Adventures: $36,500 over 2y, 7.6% of budgetOregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild: $36,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $36,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOLUMBIA RIVER BIOREGIONAL EDUCATION PROJECT: $35,600 over 1y, 39% of budgetREBUILDING TOGETHER PITTSBURGH: $35,029 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSouth River Watershed Alliance: $35,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetCHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK ACTION FUND INC: $35,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetVerde Inc: $35,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetThe Partnership Project Inc: $35,000 over 3y, 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.

United States Energy …PatagoniaorgNatural Resources Def…Windward FundRockefeller Family Fu…The Schmidt Family Fo…Solutions Project IncResources Legacy FundThe Energy FoundationSocial and Environmen…Amalgamated Charitabl…The Partnership Proje…
United States Energy FoundationCA86.6× affinity59 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Windward Fund · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Solutions Project Inc · Resources Legacy Fund · The Energy Foundation · Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Partnership Project Inc

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 60%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 3%
  • Coalition of Communities of Color: 15% of income from government
  • Eastie Farm Inc: 13% of income from government
  • Verde Inc: 3% of income from government
  • Lewis & Clark College: 2% of income from government
  • Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
6get no government money at all
43report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely 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 327 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 Sierra Club’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