Skip to content
The Access Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Access Fund

The mission of THE ACCESS FUND is to lead and inspire the climbing community toward sustainable access and conservation of the climbing environment.

$77k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Recreation & Sports$107kEnvironment$26kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $20,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $76,882 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $56,882 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.
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$4.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLIMBING ASSOCIATION OF$10,000
WISCONSIN CLIMBERS ASSOCIATION$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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 80% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GUNKS CLIMBERS COALITION: $7k → 16%WISCONSIN CLIMBERS ASSOCIATION: $10k → 10%SALT LAKE CLIMBERS ALLIANCE: $10k → 8%TOWN OF ESTES PARK: $50k → 11%WESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY: $7k → 17%NEW RIVER ALLIANCE OF CLIMBERS: $6k → 20%THE CONSERVATION FUND: $12k → 7%EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY: $5k → 16%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

WI
NY
OH
PA
UT
CO
KY
WV
VA
AZ
NC
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 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
Arkansas Climbers Coalition

Advocate for rock climbing in the state of arkansas, maintain trails and infrastructure for rock climbing in arkansas, put on events for the rock climbing community in Arkansas.

Recreation & Sports
2
The Access Fund

The mission of the access fund is to lead and inspire the climbing community toward sustainable access and conservation of the climbing environment.

Unclassified
3
Climbing Resource Access Group of Vermont Inc

CRAG-VT is a non-profit dedicated to preserving and protecting Vermont climbing. Our work spans from securing access to cliffs, serving climbers and stakeholders as an educational resource, and helping to nurture a responsible and strong…

Recreation & Sports
4
Pacific Crest Trail Association

The pacific crest trail association's mission is to advocate for the pacific crest trail as an inspirational outdoor experience, to connect people to the pct, and to conserve the trail.

—
5
Climb Avy Aware

Promotion of avalanche awareness and safety for climbers and the education of climbers and other members of the public who might be recreating in Colorado's backcountry avalanche terrain. Specifically, provides climbers with important…

Public Safety & Disaster
6
Conserving Carolina

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

Environment
7
Western Massachusetts Climbers Coalition

The wmcc builds grass roots support for climbers concerns and promotes the natural resources of western massachusetts for outdoor recreation through environmental stewardship and education.

Environment
8
American Safe Climbing Association

The American Safe Climbing Association is a non-profit organization of climbers who are dedicated to making the sport of rock climbing safer by replacing unsafe bolts and anchors and by educating climbers, land managers and the public…

Recreation & Sports
9
Utah Public Lands Alliance
Education
10
Southern Rock Climbing Booster Club

Promote competition in sport climbing by supporting the training and development of athletes in sport climbing

Recreation & Sports
11
Colorado Mountain Bike Association

COMBA is dedicated to protecting and improving mountain biking on the Colorado Front Range.

Recreation & Sports
12
Tar River Land Conservancy

Tar river land conservancy preserves the natural and cultural resources of the tar river basin and surrounding areas by working in partnership with private landowners, public agencies and others to protect rural land, riparian corridors…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Carolina Climbers Coalition; the most unlike its peers is The Conservation Fund a Nonprofit Corporation. 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

8 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. 8 of the 12 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TOWN OF ESTES PARK: $50,000 · OtherTOWN OF ESTES PARKUNDER 5000: $45,000 · OtherUNDER 5000WISCONSIN CLIMBERS ASSOCIATION: $10,000 · OtherWISCONSIN CLIMBERS ASSOCIATIONEASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY: $5,200 · OtherCAROLINA CLIMBERS COALITION: $5,166 · OtherTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $12,000 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION FUND …SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA CLIMBERS: $10,000 · EnvironmentSOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLV…WESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY: $7,000 · EnvironmentWESTERN RESERVE LAND C…GUNKS CLIMBERS COALITION: $7,000 · EnvironmentGUNKS CLIMBERS COALITI…SALT LAKE CLIMBERS ALLIANCE INC: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsSALT LAKE CLIMBE…CLIMBING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA INC: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsCLIMBING ASSOCIA…NEW RIVER ALLIANCE OF CLIMBERS INC: $6,166 · Recreation & SportsNEW RIVER ALLIAN…
Other$115,366Environment$36,000Recreation & Sports$26,166

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 budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $12,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSALT LAKE CLIMBERS ALLIANCE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetWESTERN RESERVE LAND CONSERVANCY: $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGUNKS CLIMBERS COALITION: $7,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetNEW RIVER ALLIANCE OF CLIMBERS INC: $6,166 over 1y, 8.8% of budgetCAROLINA CLIMBERS COALITION: $5,166 over 1y, 1.6% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amazonsmile 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 The Access Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Access Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 12 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 Access’ 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