Skip to content

California · Public charity

The Regeneration Project

Interfaith power & light campaign to inspire and mobilize people of faith and conscience to take bold and just action on climate change

$378k
Granted FY2023
13
Itemized grants FY2023
13
Organizations funded FY2023
15%
First-time grantees FY2023
Read the full brief
Itemized, FY2023
$341k
The rest is grants the schedule does not break out
Median grant, FY2023
$20,000
Largest grant, FY2023
$42,000
Organizations funded a year
5 to 25
FY2017 to FY2023
States reached, FY2023
13

How open it is to new grantees

In FY2023, 15% of the organizations The Regeneration Project funded were first-time grantees, receiving 15% of its grant dollars.

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23
EnvironmentReligionCommunity ImprovementOther
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.
The numbers by year
Fiscal yearOrganizations fundedTo those organizationsFirst-time grantees
FY202313$341k15%
FY202212$442k17%
FY20215$158k20%
FY20208$250k25%
FY201921$237k10%
FY201823$285k9%
FY201725$408kn/a
100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Environment$1.6MReligion$506kCivil Rights$32kCommunity Improvement$18k

Where its grants go

Grant dollars by states, across the years we hold.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
NH
WA
MT
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
IA
IN
OH
PA
CT
RI
CA
NE
KY
WV
VA
DE
AZ
NM
AR
TN
NC
SC
DC
AL
GA
TX

Top grantees

Largest recipients by total granted, FY2017 to FY2023, and the share of each one’s budget the grants supplied at peak.

Show all 36 grantees
All grantees of The Regeneration Project by total granted
GranteeTotal grantedYearsShare of their budget
Interfaith Conference of Metropolit$229,59778%
Arizona Interfaith Power and Light$219,630747%
Georgia Interfaith Power & Light Inc$206,000610%
North Carolina Council of Churches$200,0006n/a
Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light$169,055550%
Michigan Interfaith Power & Light Inc$123,000514%
Faith in Place$88,90051%
Hoosier Interfaith Power & Light Inc$83,000310%
Arkansas Interfaith Power and Light$72,0005n/a
Kentucky Interfaith Power & Light Inc$54,500440%
New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light$53,500417%
Sustaining Way$51,00044%
Congregations Caring for Creation$46,00033%
Iowa Interfaith Power and Light Iowa Faith and Climate Network$44,500315%
Nebraska Interfaith Power & Light Inc$40,0002n/a
CA Interfaith Power & Light$35,0001n/a
Massachusetts Interfaith Power and Light$34,500318%
Earth Ministry$33,50035%
Texas Impact Education Fund$32,50037%
Delaware Interfaith Power & Light$31,2503n/a
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon$26,6903n/a
West Virginia Citizen Action Education Fund$26,50023%
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy$26,00020%
Carroll Ministries International$25,000128%
RI Interfaith Power & Light$23,0002n/a
Ohio Interfaith Power & Light$22,519214%
Vermont Interfaith Power and Light$20,0003n/a
Interchurch Ministries of Nebraska$16,0002n/a
Ohio Council of Churches$15,0001n/a
Interreligious Eco-Justice Network$15,00018%
New Hampshire Council of Churches Inc$15,0001n/a
WI Interfaith Power & Light$13,0001n/a
Montana Interfaith Power and Light$10,0001n/a
People's Justice Council$8,0001n/a
New York State Interfaith Power and Light Inc$6,5401n/a
Virginia Organizing Inc$6,00010%

Where it is load-bearing

The Regeneration Project supplied at least a quarter of the budget for 4 of its grantees at some point. The chart plots its 21 largest grantees; load-bearing ones sit top left.

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetInterfaith Conference of Metropolit: $229,597 over 7y, 7.6% of budgetArizona Interfaith Power and Light: $219,630 over 7y, 47% of budgetGeorgia Interfaith Power & Light Inc: $206,000 over 6y, 9.8% of budgetPennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light: $169,055 over 5y, 50% of budgetMichigan Interfaith Power & Light Inc: $123,000 over 5y, 14% of budgetFaith in Place: $88,900 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetHoosier Interfaith Power & Light Inc: $83,000 over 3y, 9.6% of budgetKentucky Interfaith Power & Light Inc: $54,500 over 4y, 40% of budgetNew Mexico Interfaith Power and Light: $53,500 over 4y, 17% of budgetSustaining Way: $51,000 over 4y, 4.5% of budgetCongregations Caring for Creation: $46,000 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetIowa Interfaith Power and Light Iowa Faith and Climate Network: $44,500 over 3y, 15% of budgetMassachusetts Interfaith Power and Light: $34,500 over 3y, 18% of budgetEarth Ministry: $33,500 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetTexas Impact Education Fund: $32,500 over 3y, 6.9% of budgetWest Virginia Citizen Action Education Fund: $26,500 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetSouthern Alliance for Clean Energy: $26,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetCarroll Ministries International: $25,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetOhio Interfaith Power & Light: $22,519 over 2y, 14% of budgetInterreligious Eco-Justice Network: $15,000 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetVirginia Organizing Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget

Tap a dot to name the grantee.

How this is measured
Share of budget is the funder’s grant in a year over the grantee’s total revenue that year, at its highest across the years we hold; revenue is from all sources. Only grantees confirmed against their own filings, whose grants do not exceed their revenue, are plotted: the largest 21.

Nonprofits that may fit its grantmaking

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 FoundationCA24.7× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · US Climate Action Network · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · Windward Fund · Sierra Club · The Energy Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · The Partnership Project Inc · Impactassetsinc · New Venture Fund · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Tides 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.

Compare The Regeneration Project with peer funders

About The Regeneration Project

How much does The Regeneration Project give?
The Regeneration Project reported 13 itemized grants totaling $341,000, out of $377,600 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2023 IRS filing. It funded between 5 and 25 organizations a year over FY2017 to FY2023.
What does The Regeneration Project fund?
By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2023, its largest causes are Environment (74%), Religion (24%), Civil Rights (2%).
Who are The Regeneration Project's largest grantees?
By total granted over FY2017 to FY2023: Interfaith Conference of Metropolit ($230k), Arizona Interfaith Power and Light ($220k), Georgia Interfaith Power & Light Inc ($206k).
Does The Regeneration Project fund new organizations?
In FY2023, 15% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.
Which funders back the same organizations as The Regeneration Project?
Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include United States Energy Foundation, US Climate Action Network, Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated.
Where is The Regeneration Project based?
The Regeneration Project is based in CA.

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 36 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $157k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Regeneration Project’s filings →

More from the funding graph