· Public charity
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 14 grants below total $637,100 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $683,444 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $46,344 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k5 grants · $37k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $133k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
- $250k+1 grant · $368k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS | $367,500 |
| THE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT INC | $100,000 |
| BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| GREATER CLEVELAND CONGREGATIONS | $25,000 |
| GREENLATINOS | $20,000 |
| GREEN 20 | $20,000 |
| MEMPHIS COMMUNITY AGAINST POLLUTION | $18,000 |
| CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD OF OHIO | $15,000 |
| HEALTHY CLIMATE WISCONSIN INC | $10,000 |
| GREENROOTS INC | $8,100 |
| EVNOIRE | $7,500 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INC | $7,500 |
| LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND | $7,500 |
| INTERFAITH CENTER ON CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY | $6,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY22–23, $225k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +17% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $57k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- SASOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC3× · 2022–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +53%
- HHHarambee House Inc2× · 2022–2023 · $150k · revenue +17%
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC2× · 2022–2023 · $109k · revenue +34%
Funded once
- SPSolutions Project Incgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $850k · revenue +72%
- DSDEEP SOUTH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTALgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $150k · revenue +74%
ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INCone grant, 2022 · $127k · revenue -30%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
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…
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
The NW Energy Coalition is an alliance of over 100 environmental, civic, and human service organizations, utilities, and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, plus many individual members. The NW Energy…
Clean energy research and advocacy. Clean Energy Group promotes effective clean energy policies, develops low carbon technology innovation strategies and promotes new financial tools to strengthen the economy and stabilize climate change.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
Greenaction mobilizes community power to win victories that change govenment and corporate policies and practices to protect health and promote environmental, economic and social justice.
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
ACT leads the just, equitable and rapid transition to a clean energy future and diverse climate economy.
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…
Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy. 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.
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 21 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
41 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 41 of the 46 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
- Who funds Solutions Project Inc ↗
- Who funds The Partnership Project Inc ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR AFFORDABLE ENERGY ↗
- Who funds DEEP SOUTH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ↗
- Who funds Harambee House Inc ↗
- Who funds West Harlem Environmental Action Inc ↗
- Who funds ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR EARTH ENERGY AND DEMOCRACY ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds BlueGreen Alliance Foundation ↗
- Who funds The Poor Peoples Campaign Inc ↗
- Who funds CLEAN WATER FUND ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS UTILITY BOARD OF OHIO ↗
- Who funds Green 20 ↗
- Who funds MOVEMENT STRATEGY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CLEANAIRNOW ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds GreenLatinos ↗
- Who funds The Trustees of Princeton University ↗
- Who funds SOULARDARITY ↗
- Who funds GREATER CLEVELAND CONGREGATIONS INC ↗
- Who funds GREENROOTS INC ↗
- Who funds IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds GULLAH GEECHEE ANGEL NETWORK ↗
- Who funds 350 NEW HAMPSHIRE ↗
- Who funds WECOUNT ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds JUST TRANSITION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds WABANAKI YOUTH IN SCIENCE INC ↗
- Who funds NEW ALPHA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUNDATION INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds CLEAN ENERGY NH ↗
- Who funds WEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TIDES ADVOCACY ↗
- Who funds YOUNG GIFTED & GREEN ↗
- Who funds 4 Venir Inc ↗
- Who funds HEALTHY CLIMATE WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Windward Fund · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · The Partnership Project Inc · Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc · Tides Foundation · Solutions Project Inc · Movement Strategy Center · The Kresge Foundation · The Nature Conservancy
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 organization The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc 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.
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Greenroots Inc — 1% of income from government
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 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.