Skip to content
Southern Environmental Law Center at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Southern Environmental Law Center

The mission of the SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER is to protect the basic right to clean air, clean water, and a livable climate; to preserve our region's natural treasures and rich biodiversity; and to provide a healthy environment for all.

$86k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$24k
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$615kCrime & Legal$500kEducation$40kCommunity Improvement$24kCivil Rights$14k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $67,250, the rows itemized in this filing. The $86,416 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $19,166 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.
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$281M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NORTH CAROLINIANS FOR PASSENGER RAIL$23,750
CONSERVATION ALABAMA$20,000
ASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC$13,500
VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE$10,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 81% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT ACTION FUND: $13k → 14%COOSA RIVERKEEPER: $20k → 7%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $10k → 11%CAHABA RIVER SOCIETY: $6k → 16%CHEROKEE FOREST VOICES: $25k → 14%PROTECT OUR AQUIFER: $30k → 17%NORTH CAROLINIANS FOR PASSENGER RAIL: $24k → 8%NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $10k → 11%UNIV OF N CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE: $34k → 12%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $50k → 21%GA FORESTWATCH: $24k → 12%ATLANTA BICYCLE COALITION: $20k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA RESEARCH FDN: $8k → 27%CONSERVATION ALABAMA: $20k → 19%VA ORGANIZING PROJECT: $30k → 8%VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE: $15k → 12%SIERRA CLUB - VA CHAPTER: $7k → 22%ALABAMA RIVER ALLIANCE: $25k → 16%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER MEMPHIS: $12k → 17%NC CONSERVATION NETWORK: $41k → 8%LAURA HODGE: $8k → 12%APPALACHIAN VOICES: $23k → 21%GA FORESTWATCH: $12k → 12%VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE: $15k → 12%VA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $7k → 22%WILD SOUTH: $40k → 12%GA FORESTWATCH: $12k → 12%VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE: $10k → 12%GA FORESTWATCH: $11k → 12%VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE: $29k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $12k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$12k · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: TO SUPPORT PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY EFFORTS FOCUSED ON BIOMASS ENERGY POLICY IN THE UK

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 9% of Southern Environmental Law Center’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 13% of the giving stays in VA; by stated purpose, 10%.

Southern Environmental Law Centerlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

36%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$243k · 3 repeat orgs$436k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
18

Total granted

$243k
$379k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-20%
+18%

Still filing today

100%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $57k 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
EnvironmentEducationCommunity ImprovementCivil RightsOther
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

  • VW
    VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE
    6× · 2017–2025 · $112k · revenue -79%
  • AV
    APPALACHIAN VOICES
    2× · 2017–2023 · $73k · revenue +189%
  • GF
    GEORGIA FORESTWATCH INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $59k · revenue -20%

Funded once

  • SA
    SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY
    one grant, 2017 · $47k · revenue +3%
  • NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORKgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $41k · revenue +58%
  • WS
    Wild Southgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $40k · revenue +28%
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
Conserving Carolina

To protect, restore, and inspire appreciation of the natural world.

Environment
2
Environment Georgia Research and Policy Center

The corporation is organized for the purpose of conducting public interest research, policy development, analysis, and education to protect the environment and people of Georgia, including, but not limited to, the quality of Georgia's air,…

—
3
North Carolina League of Conservation Voters Foundation

NCLCVF engages people to protect our environment and promote the well-being of our communities. We work to turn environmental values into NC priorities by engaging people in the democratic process, organizing in communities first and worst…

Environment
4
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
5
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
6
Georgia River Network Inc dba Georgia Rivers

Georgia rivers works to protect and connect people with georgia's rivers.

Environment
7
New River Conservancy

To protect the water woodlands and wildlife of the New River Watershed.

Environment
8
The South Fork Conservancy Incorporated

The mission of the South Fork Conservancy is to restore and preserve habitat along the tributaries of Peachtree Creek. We give the community access to these healthy, restored greenspaces by designing, building and maintaining nature trails.

Environment
9
West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc

To promote safe and healthy waters for all in west virginia, primarily through water policy advocacy. the organization provides public education and informational resources.

Environment
10
Alabama Values

A nonpartisan grassroots communication organization that works to raise awareness and increase engagement around community issues in alabama by working directly with civic organizations advocating civic participation in communities across…

Arts & Culture
11
Conservation Lands Foundation

To protect, restore, and expand the National Conservation Lands through education,advocacy, and partnerships.

Environment
12
North Carolina League of Conservation Voters

Nclcv protects the health & quality of life for all north carolinians by: advocating for sound environmental policies that protect our communities, holding elected leaders accountable for their decisions, mobilizing voters to advocate for…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Carolina Conservation Network; the most unlike its peers is North Carolinians for Passenger Rail. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 26 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/23
Grantees still filing
15/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TIDES FOUNDATION: $500,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUNDATION+1 more: $12,000 · PhilanthropyAPPALACHIAN VOICES: $72,500 · EnvironmentAPPALACHIAN VOICESGEORGIA FORESTWATCH INC: $58,592 · EnvironmentGEORGIA FORESTWATCH INCSOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $46,600 · EnvironmentSOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $40,900 · EnvironmentNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORKWild South: $40,000 · EnvironmentWild SouthProtect Our Aquifer: $30,000 · EnvironmentProtect Our AquiferAlabama Rivers Alliance Inc: $25,000 · EnvironmentAlabama Rivers Alliance IncConservation Alabama: $20,000 · EnvironmentConservation AlabamaCOOSA RIVERKEEPER INC: $20,000 · EnvironmentCOOSA RIVERKEEPER INCThe Partnership Project Action Fund: $12,500 · Environment+1 more: $6,667 · EnvironmentVIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE: $112,238 · OtherVIRGINIA WILDERNE…CHEROKEE FOREST VOICES INC: $25,000 · OtherCHEROKEE FOREST V…North Carolinians for Passenger Rail: $23,750 · OtherNorth Carolinians…UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $10,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NOR…LAURA HODGE: $8,300 · OtherSIERRA CLUB: $6,667 · OtherThe University of North Carolina at Asheville Foundation Inc: $33,719 · EducationPROPEL ATL INC: $20,000 · EducationNORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · EducationUniversity of Georgia Research Foundation Inc: $8,100 · EducationVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $30,000 · Community ImprovementCahaba River Society Inc: $5,785 · Community ImprovementASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $13,500 · Civil Rights
Philanthropy$512,000Environment$372,759Other$185,955Education$71,819Community Improvement$35,785Civil Rights$13,500

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 budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $500,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetVIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE: $112,238 over 6y, 23% of budgetAPPALACHIAN VOICES: $72,500 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetGEORGIA FORESTWATCH INC: $58,592 over 4y, 6.0% of budgetSOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $46,600 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $40,900 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetWild South: $40,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetThe University of North Carolina at Asheville Foundation Inc: $33,719 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetProtect Our Aquifer: $30,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAlabama Rivers Alliance Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetNorth Carolinians for Passenger Rail: $23,750 over 1y, 40% of budgetPROPEL ATL INC: $20,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetCOOSA RIVERKEEPER INC: $20,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetASIAN AMERICAN ADVOCACY FUND INC: $13,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetThe Partnership Project Action Fund: $12,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER MEMPHIS INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUniversity of Georgia Research Foundation Inc: $8,100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVIRGINIA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $6,667 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $6,667 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCahaba River Society Inc: $5,785 over 1y, 1.1% 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.

PatagoniaorgCharlottesville Area …The Community Foundat…Foundation for the Ca…The Energy FoundationEnvironmental Defense…United States Energy …Westwind FoundationStephens FoundationNatural Resources Def…Amalgamated Charitabl…The Pfizer Foundation…
PatagoniaorgCA20.7× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Charlottesville Area Community Foundation · The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta Inc · Foundation for the Carolinas · The Energy Foundation · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · United States Energy Foundation · Westwind Foundation · Stephens Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Pfizer Foundation 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 Southern Environmental Law Center funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Southern Environmental Law Center. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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 26 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 Southern Environmental Law Center’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