Skip to content
The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust

Provides grants to and makes program-related investments for the benefit of its supported organizations

$35M
Granted FY2024still arriving
24
Grants FY2024still arriving
12
States reached
$3.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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$175M
02FY2024 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $34k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $608k
  • $250k+18 grants · $34M
$1,000,000
Median grant
12
States reached
$468M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT$3,782,370
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$3,703,448
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND$3,483,828
ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE$3,445,000
HOUR GLASS CLIMATE INC$3,100,000
WINDWARD FUND$3,000,000
HEALTH IN HARMONY INC$2,376,945
OCEAN VISION INC$2,000,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND$2,000,000
CARBON180$1,975,845
SPARK CLIMATE SOLUTIONS INC$1,000,000
SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS$1,000,000
EARTHJUSTICE$900,000
THIRD ACT EDUCATIONAL FUND INC$600,000
INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS$500,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 42% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS: $1.0M → 11%THE CLIMATE FOUNDATION: $2.0M → 8%CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION: $3.5M → 16%GLOBAL WITNESS: $6.8M → 8%CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL: $1.0M → 10%CLIENT EARTH USA: $5.0M → 14%NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL: $1.6M → 17%WORLD WILDLIFE FUND: $3.5M → 14%SAVANNA INSTITUTE: $12.0M → 10%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $3.7M → 7%HOUR GLASS CLIMATE INC: $3.1M → 16%OCEAN VISION INC: $2.0M → 4%RARE: $9.5M → 7%ACTIVATE GLOBAL: $3.4M → 10%CLIENT EARTH USA: $2.0M → 14%SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $1.4M → 17%THE WORLD WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $2.7M → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $3.4M → 7%OCEAN VISIONS: $1.6M → 4%RARE: $5.8M → 7%CLIENT EARTH USA: $2.0M → 14%SUSTAINABLE MARKET FOUNDATION: $1.2M → 17%THE WORLD WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $1.3M → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $1.9M → 7%RARE: $2.5M → 7%CARBON MAPPER: $8.0M → 14%THE WORLD WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $1.2M → 14%RARE: $2.4M → 7%ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPIC ADVISORS: $2.8M → 17%THE WORLD WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $1.0M → 14%RARE: $2.0M → 7%BUCKMINSTER FULLER: $1.0M → 10%CTREES: $4.0M → 14%CTREES: $2.0M → 14%EARTHJUSTICE: $1.6M → 10%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $3.5M → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $4.5M → 7%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $2.5M → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $3.7M → 7%RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK: $1.2M → 10%LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $2.0M → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2.9M → 7%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $1.6M → 7%SPARK CLIMATE SOLUTIONS: $6.0M → 10%INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: $3.8M → 14%CARBON180: $2.0M → 14%WINDWARD FUND: $3.0M → 14%CARBON180: $1.5M → 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
ME
VT
MT
IL
WI
NY
MA
OR
SD
NJ
CA
CO
VA
DE
DC
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.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$107M · 23 repeat orgs$47M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against +29% for those funded once.

23 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
18

Total granted

$107M
$38M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+29%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9.4M went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentInternationalScience & TechHealthFood & NutritionEducationOther
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

  • R
    RARE
    7× · 2017–2024 · $23M · revenue +30% · 31% of their budget
  • WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $10M · revenue +62%
  • Rocky Mountain Institute
    4× · 2020–2024 · $9.8M · revenue +183%

Funded once

  • SI
    SAVANNA INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2023 · $12M · revenue -81% · 63% of their budget
  • CM
    Carbon Mapper Incgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $8.0M · revenue +82% · 35% of their budget
  • GW
    GLOBAL WITNESSgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $6.8M · revenue +46% · 50% of their budget
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
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
2
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
3
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
4
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
5
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
6
The Climate Group Inc

Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…

Environment
7
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
8
Environment Now
—
9
International Council On Environmental Economics and Development Union
Human Services
10
Cascade Climate Inc

To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.

Environment
11
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
12
Terraset

Terraset uses philanthropic capital to purchase permanent, high-quality carbon removal. we pool donations from individuals, foundations, family offices, and donor advised funds, and make strategic purchases of high-quality carbon removal…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Earth Innovation Institute; the most unlike its peers is The Henry M Paulson Jr Institute. 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

51 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

18
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
51/51
Grantees still filing
29/51
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RARE: $22,631,629 · EnvironmentRARESAVANNA INSTITUTE: $12,000,000 · EnvironmentSAVANNA INSTITUTEWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $10,061,140 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INCCLIENTEARTH USA INC: $9,000,000 · EnvironmentCLIENTEARTH USA INCCarbon Mapper Inc: $8,000,000 · EnvironmentCarbon Mapper IncLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $8,000,000 · EnvironmentLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUNDSpark Climate Solutions: $7,000,000 · EnvironmentSpark Climate SolutionsCTREES: $6,000,000 · EnvironmentCENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL: $4,475,845 · Environment+18 more: $26,303,280 · Environment+18 moreTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $14,680,725 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSER…Rocky Mountain Institute: $9,842,728 · OtherRocky Mountain In…POPULATION MEDIA CENTER INC: $1,584,754 · OtherPOPULATION MEDIA …+3 more: $1,500,000 · Other+3 moreGLOBAL WITNESS: $6,850,000 · InternationalINSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: $3,782,370 · InternationalTHE HENRY M PAULSON JR INSTITUTE: $1,700,000 · InternationalONE ACRE FUND: $800,000 · International+1 more: $250,000 · InternationalOCEAN VISIONS INC: $4,000,000 · Science & TechClimate Foundation: $2,482,898 · Science & TechBuckminster Fuller Institute: $1,000,000 · Science & TechSOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS: $1,000,000 · Science & Tech+1 more: $62,500 · Science & TechHealth in Harmony: $5,176,945 · HealthCenter for Environmental Health: $800,000 · HealthECDYSIS FOUNDATION: $250,000 · HealthROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $2,800,000 · PhilanthropyEarth Innovation Institute: $300,000 · PhilanthropyZERO FOODPRINT: $888,917 · Food & NutritionBIONUTRIENT FOOD ASSOCIATION INC: $850,000 · Food & NutritionALTASEADS CONSERVANCY DBA KELP ARK - THE GLOBAL MACROALGAE SEED: $600,000 · Food & Nutrition
Environment$113,471,894Other$27,608,207International$13,382,370Science & Tech$8,545,398Health$6,226,945Philanthropy$3,100,000Food & Nutrition$2,338,917

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRARE: $22,631,629 over 7y, 31% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $14,680,725 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetSAVANNA INSTITUTE: $12,000,000 over 1y, 63% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $10,061,140 over 7y, 1.2% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $9,842,728 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetCLIENTEARTH USA INC: $9,000,000 over 3y, 59% of budgetCarbon Mapper Inc: $8,000,000 over 1y, 35% of budgetLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND: $8,000,000 over 3y, 9.7% of budgetSpark Climate Solutions: $7,000,000 over 2y, 94% of budgetGLOBAL WITNESS: $6,850,000 over 1y, 50% of budgetCTREES: $6,000,000 over 2y, 96% of budgetHealth in Harmony: $5,176,945 over 2y, 39% of budgetCENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL: $4,475,845 over 3y, 25% of budgetOCEAN VISIONS INC: $4,000,000 over 3y, 24% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: $3,782,370 over 1y, 31% of budgetCONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION INC: $3,600,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetACTIVATE GLOBAL INC: $3,400,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetHOURGLASS CLIMATE INC: $3,100,000 over 1y, 41% of budgetWINDWARD FUND: $3,000,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $2,900,000 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $2,800,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetEARTHJUSTICE: $2,500,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetClimate Foundation: $2,482,898 over 2y, 40% of budgetTHE HENRY M PAULSON JR INSTITUTE: $1,700,000 over 4y, 15% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $1,600,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetPOPULATION MEDIA CENTER INC: $1,584,754 over 3y, 9.0% of budgetRainforest Action Network: $1,200,000 over 2y, 9.0% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES: $1,000,000 over 2y, 28% of budgetSOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS: $1,000,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetZERO FOODPRINT: $888,917 over 3y, 17% of budgetBIONUTRIENT FOOD ASSOCIATION INC: $850,000 over 3y, 26% of budgetONE ACRE FUND: $800,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCenter for Environmental Health: $800,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetDEFEND OUR HEALTH: $800,000 over 1y, 54% of budgetD&R GREENWAY LAND TRUST INC: $700,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetTHIRD ACT EDUCATION FUND INC: $600,000 over 1y, 25% of budgetALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS: $600,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetCalCef Innovations: $600,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetALTASEADS CONSERVANCY DBA KELP ARK - THE GLOBAL MACROALGAE SEED: $600,000 over 1y, 42% of budget1st Street Foundation Inc: $500,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetINSIDE CLIMATE NEWS INC: $500,000 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetWILDAID INC: $500,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $400,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetEarth Innovation Institute: $300,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetECDYSIS FOUNDATION: $250,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetCENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INC: $250,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetGLOBAL WATER CHALLENGE: $165,780 over 1y, 17% of budgetEnvironmental Law Institute: $120,000 over 1y, 1.7% 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.

Grantham Foundation f…ImpactassetsincMaine Community Found…Silicon Valley Commun…The Marisla FoundationClimateworks Foundati…The Schmidt Family Fo…Windward FundPatagoniaorgThe San Francisco Fou…Forsythia Foundation …High Tide Foundation
Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the EnvironmentMA30.5× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment · Impactassetsinc · Maine Community Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Marisla Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Windward Fund · Patagoniaorg · The San Francisco Foundation · Forsythia Foundation Inc · High Tide 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 Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 9%
  • D&r Greenway Land Trust Inc: 9% of income from government
  • 1st Street Foundation Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust?

Find your warmest path to The Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental Trust through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 51 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Jeremy and Hannelore Grantham Environmental’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