How much did THE ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION grant in FY2024?

Environment$535kHuman Services$86kCommunity Improvement$70kReligion$50kCivil Rights$30kPublic Safety & Disaster$30kYouth Development$20kHousing & Shelter$20kArts & Culture$10kOther$66k

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

—

2020

engaging underrepresentedunderrepresented groupsgroups change-related

2021

engaging underrepresentedunderrepresented groupsgroups change-related

2022

engaging underrepresentedunderrepresented groupsgroups change-related

2024

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k1 grant · $8k
$10k–50k1 grant · $17k

$17,000

Median grant

States reached

$23M

Total assets

Largest grants

THE NEW SUN RISING$17,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND$7,500

02The need

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 (FY20–24, $86k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 12%. 45% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

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 line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — 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.

40%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$363k · 4 repeat orgs$553k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$363k

$529k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%

+242%

Still filing today

100%

89%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesReligionPublic Safety & DisasterCivil RightsOther

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

RG
RIO GRANDE INTERNATIONAL STUDY CENTER
2× · 2021–2022 · $40k · revenue +563%
SD
SAMUEL DEWITT PROCTOR CONFERENCE INC
2× · 2021–2022 · $40k · revenue +27%
DI
DREAM IN GREEN
2× · 2020–2021 · $30k · revenue +9%

Funded once

PO
PROTECT OUR AQUIFERgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +2231%
OB
OPERATION BETTER BLOCK INCgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +85%
JC
JUNCTION COALITIONgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +806%

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.

Educator Collective for Envionmental Justice Inc

Environmental Justice & Equality

Education

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

Center for Diversity and the Environment

To racially and ethnically diversify the US Environmental Moment by developing leaders, diversifying institutions, and building community.

Environment

Partners for Environmental Justice

The organization's mission is working to advocate for the human and natural communities in southeast raleigh.

Environment

Environment Now

—

Global Envirotech Initiative

Philanthropy

Usa Green Communities

—

Green Cities Accord

Green Cities Accord is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering climate resilient communities through investments in tree canopy infrastructure to improve environmental health, climate resilience, and equity in communities. We focus…

Environment

Democracy Green

Democracy Green advances environmental fairness, climate resilience, and public health through education, direct community assistance, and policy engagement. The organization empowers residents in under-resourced and disaster-impacted…

Environment

Environmental Justice Community Action Network

NC has clean & safe air, water & soil.

Environment

Green Columbus

Green Columbus is a volunteer-driven nonprofit seeking to improve equitable environmental outcomes for the people of Central Ohio.

Environment

Detroiters Working for

The organization is known as the leader in the movement and is seen as the "go to" experts on environmental justice and sustainable redevelopment because of its knowledge and its network.

Health

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social & Environmental Entrepreneurs and the most unlike its peers is Protect Our Aquifer. 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.

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 12 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/44

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,521

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.

05the grantee network

41 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

40/41

Grantees still filing

36/41

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Environment$534,960Human Services$85,750Community Improvement$70,000Other$116,000Religion$50,000Civil Rights$30,000Public Safety & Disaster$30,000

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

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.

Solutions Project IncCA34.7× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Solutions Project Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · Tides Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Windward Fund · The Partnership Project Inc · Policylink · Rockefeller Family Fund Inc · National Wildlife Federation · Sierra Club

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 organisation THE ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

3get no government money at all

1rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: SUSTAINABLE WATER ENERGY & ECONOMIC TRANSITION IN ALABAMA (SWEET ALABAMA).

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~14 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 3 filed years.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

3 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 3.0× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 825045504 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on SUSTAINABLE WATER ENERGY & ECONOMIC TRANSITION IN ALABAMA (SWEET ALABAMA), cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 14 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 11% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to The Alliance for Climate Protection?

Find your warmest path to The Alliance for Climate Protection through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

THE ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

41 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Alliance for Climate Protection?

More from the funding graph

THE ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

41 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Alliance for Climate Protection?

More from the funding graph