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

· 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
Grants FY2023
13
States reached
$42k
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 2023.

Environment$1.6MReligion$506kCivil Rights$32kCommunity Improvement$18k
02FY2023 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $341,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $377,600 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $36,600 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
13
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GA Interfaith Power & Light$42,000
PA Interfaith Power & Light$42,000
AZ Interfaith Power & Light$42,000
Faith in Place$42,000
CA Interfaith Power & Light$35,000
NC Interfaith Power & Light$21,000
S Alliance for Clean Energy$20,000
AR Interfaith Power & Light$20,000
NE Interfaith Power & Light$20,000
Inter Religous Eco Justice NW$15,000
NM Interfaith Power & Light$15,000
TX Interfaith Power & Light$15,000
Interfaith Conf Metro WA DC$12,000
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 (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 82% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%AZ Interfaith Power & Light: $42k → 11%MA Interfaith Power & Light: $15k → 8%NE Interfaith Power & Light: $20k → 13%PA Interfaith Power & Light: $42k → 11%PA Interfaith Power & Light: $85k → 16%Carroll Ministries Intl: $25k → 10%TX Interfaith Power & Light: $15k → 10%S Alliance for Clean Energy: $20k → 10%AR Interfaith Power & Light: $20k → 17%Interfaith Conf Metro WA DC: $48k → 14%Iowa Interfaith Power & Light: $17k → 10%MI Interfaith Power & Light: $27k → 8%MI Interfaith Power & Light: $55k → 21%Inter Religous Eco Justice NW: $15k → 9%TN Interfaith Power & Light: $20k → 12%NC Interfaith Power & Light: $50k → 8%GA Interfaith Power & Light: $89k → 14%Hoosier Interfaith PowrLight: $68k → 16%Ohio Interfaith Power & Light: $16k → 15%Faith in Place: $42k → 14%VA Interfaith Power & Light: $24k → 9%KY Interfaith Power & Light: $15k → 15%AZ Interfaith Power & Light: $42k → 11%NE Interfaith Power & Light: $20k → 13%PA Interfaith Power & Light: $19k → 16%CA Interfaith Power & Light: $35k → 10%AR Interfaith Power & Light: $20k → 17%Interfaith Conf Metro WA DC: $33k → 14%MI Interfaith Power & Light: $18k → 8%NC Interfaith Power & Light: $42k → 8%GA Interfaith Power & Light: $42k → 14%WV Citizen Action Edu Fund: $20k → 18%Faith in Place: $20k → 14%AZ Interfaith Power & Light: $39k → 11%MN Interfaith Power & Light: $22k → 11%PA Interfaith Power & Light: $16k → 16%Interfaith Conferen Metro WA: $27k → 14%NC Council of Churches: $42k → 8%GA Interfaith Power & Light: $39k → 14%AZ Interfaith Power & Light: $32k → 11%Interfaith Conf Metro WA DC: $26k → 14%NC Interfaith Power & Light: $22k → 8%KY Interfaith Power & Light: $20k → 15%AZ Interfaith Power & Light: $25k → 11%Interfaith Conf Metro WA DC: $23k → 14%NC Interfaith Power & Light: $21k → 8%Interfaith Conf Metro WA DC: $19k → 14%NC Council of Churches NCIPL: $16k → 8%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

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
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 26 repeat orgs$149k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +105% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

26 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2023, 15 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
8

Total granted

$2.0M
$99k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+105%
0%

Still filing today

69%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
EnvironmentReligionCommunity ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • IC
    INTERFAITH CONFERENCE OF METROPOLIT
    7× · 2017–2023 · $230k · revenue +162%
  • AI
    Arizona Interfaith Power and Light
    7× · 2017–2023 · $220k · revenue +148% · 47% of their budget
  • GI
    Georgia Interfaith Power & Light Inc
    6× · 2017–2023 · $206k · revenue +402%

Funded once

  • CM
    CARROLL MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · 28% of their budget
  • OC
    OHIO COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
  • NH
    NEW HAMPSHIRE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES INC
    one grant, 2020 · $15k
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
Virginia Interfaith Power & Light

Virginia Interfaith Power & Light collaborates among people of faith and conscience to grow healthy communities by advancing climate and environmental education.

Environment
2
California Interfaith Power & Light

California Interfaith Power & Light inspires and mobilizes individuals and communities of faith and conscience to take boldand justaction on climate change.

Environment
3
Eco-Justice Ministries

Advancement of religion -- specifically the ability of churches and other religious institutions to address environmental and social justice concerns.

—
4
Utah Interfaith Power & Light

Utah interfaith power & light inspires, educates and collaborates with faith communities to promote earth stewardship, clean energy and climate justice.

—
5
Greater New Orleans Interfaith Climate Coalition

The greater new orleans interfaith climate coalition acts as a catalyst to educate, empower, engage, and equip faith leaders and communities to meet our moral, ethical, and spiritual responsibility to establish climate justice and promote…

Religion
6
Climate Parliament Inc

Researching policy ideas on climate and clean energy in India, engaging legislators and business leaders to discuss those ideas.

International
7
Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions

To help people of faith communities develop local solutions to the climate crisis and provide education to local governments about climate change and its consequences.

Environment
8
Catholic Climate Covenant

The Catholic Climate Covenant inspires and equips people and institutions to care for creation and care for the poor. Organizations mission through its twenty national partners, it guides the United States catholic churches response to…

—
9
American Interfaith Institute
Religion
10
Power Interfaith Inc

The Organization is organized as an interfaith movement to use our belief in Gods goodness and compassion for the suffering to organize and empower the people of Pennsylvaniaa to live and work for all.

Community Improvement
11
Presbyterians for Earth Care Inc

Faith based eco-justice education and advocacy - a national eco-justice network that cares for God's creation by connecting equipping and inspiring Presbyterians to make creation care a central concern of the church.

Religion
12
Kansas Interfaith Action Inc

Kansas Interfaith Action is a statewide, multi-faith advocacy organization that puts faith into action by educating, engaging, and advocating on behalf of people of faith and the public regarding critical social, economic, and climate…

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan Interfaith Power & Light Inc; the most unlike its peers is People's Justice Council. 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

25 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. 25 of the 36 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
14
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/25
Grantees still filing
16/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Arizona Interfaith Power and Light: $219,630 · EnvironmentArizona Interfaith Power and LightGeorgia Interfaith Power & Light Inc: $206,000 · EnvironmentGeorgia Interfaith Power & Light IncPENNSYLVANIA INTERFAITH POWER & LIGHT: $169,055 · EnvironmentPENNSYLVANIA INTERFAITH POWER & LIGHTARKANSAS INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT: $72,000 · EnvironmentARKANSAS INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHTKentucky Interfaith Power & Light Inc: $54,500 · EnvironmentKentucky Interfaith Power & Light IncNEW MEXICO INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT: $53,500 · EnvironmentNEW MEXICO INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHTIOWA INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT IOWA FAITH AND CLIMATE NETWORK: $44,500 · EnvironmentMASSACHUSETTS INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT: $34,500 · EnvironmentDelaware Interfaith Power & Light: $31,250 · Environment+3 more: $49,000 · EnvironmentINTERFAITH CONFERENCE OF METROPOLIT: $229,597 · OtherINTERFAITH CONFERENCE OF METROPOLITNORTH CAROLINA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: $200,000 · OtherNORTH CAROLINA COUNCIL OF CHURCHESHOOSIER INTERFAITH POWER & LIGHT INC: $83,000 · OtherHOOSIER INTERFAITH POWER & LIGHT INCNEBRASKA INTERFAITH POWER & LIGHT INC: $40,000 · OtherCA Interfaith Power & Light: $35,000 · OtherEARTH MINISTRY: $33,500 · OtherECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON: $26,690 · Other+8 more: $118,540 · Other+8 moreMICHIGAN INTERFAITH POWER & LIGHT INC: $123,000 · ReligionMICHIGAN INTERFAIT…FAITH IN PLACE: $88,900 · ReligionFAITH IN PLACECONGREGATIONS CARING FOR CREATION: $46,000 · ReligionCONGREGATIONS CARI…TEXAS IMPACT EDUCATION FUND: $32,500 · ReligionTEXAS IMPACT EDUCA…CARROLL MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL: $25,000 · ReligionCARROLL MINISTRIES…Ohio Interfaith Power & Light: $22,519 · ReligionOhio Interfaith Po…SUSTAINING WAY: $51,000 · Community ImprovementVIRGINIA ORGANIZING INC: $6,000 · Community ImprovementWEST VIRGINIA CITIZEN ACTION EDUCATION FUND: $26,500 · Education
Environment$933,935Other$766,327Religion$337,919Community Improvement$57,000Education$26,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$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
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.

United States Energy …US Climate Action Net…Environmental Defense…Windward FundSierra ClubThe Energy FoundationThe Minneapolis Found…The Partnership Proje…ImpactassetsincNew Venture FundRockefeller Philanthr…Tides Foundation
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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Regeneration Project funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Regeneration Project. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    4get 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 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

    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