Skip to content
Toxic-Free Future F/K/A Washington Toxics Coalition at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Toxic-Free Future F/K/A Washington Toxics Coalition

As a national leader in environmental health research and advocacy, toxic- free future uses the power of science, education, and activism, to drive strong laws and corporate responsibility that protect the health of all people and the planet.

$459k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$195k
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$2.7MHealth$72kPublic Benefit$60kReligion$33kHuman Services$15k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $435,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $458,700 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $23,700 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $240k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $195k
$30,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$5.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLEAN WATER FUND$195,000
CLEAN AND HEALTHY NEW YORK$45,000
VERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH &$35,000
VERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL$35,000
ECOLOGY CENTER$30,000
DEFEND OUR HEALTH$30,000
BREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS$25,000
OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL$25,000
NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORK$15,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–19, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%LATINO COMMUNITY FUND OF WASHINGTON: $8k → 9%LATINO COMMUNITY FUND OF WASHINGTON: $8k → 9%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
WA
MI
NY
MA
OR
PA
CT
CA
CO
MD
NC
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.9M · 17 repeat orgs$18k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +11% since the first grant, against -19% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
2

Total granted

$2.9M
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
-19%

Still filing today

100%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EnvironmentReligionHuman ServicesHealthEducationCivil RightsOther
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

  • CA
    CLEAN AND HEALTHY NEW YORK
    7× · 2017–2024 · $281k · revenue +65%
  • EC
    ECOLOGY CENTER
    8× · 2017–2024 · $237k · revenue +70%
  • AC
    ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS
    7× · 2017–2023 · $196k · revenue +208%

Funded once

  • CC
    CONSERVATION COLORADO
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue -19%
  • CC
    CT COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
    one grant, 2017 · $8k
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
Western Resource Advocates

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization fighting climate change and its impacts to sustain the environment, economy, and people of the West. As the region's go-to experts for more than three decades,…

Crime & Legal
2
Environmental Research Center Inc

To safeguard the public from health hazards that impact families, workers, and the environment

Environment
3
Nw Energy Coalition

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…

—
4
Environmental Law Foundation

Environmental Law Foundation's (ELF) mission is to protect the environment, communities, and consumers against harmful toxics and other environmental harms. Our work consistently improves environmental quality for those most at risk by…

Crime & Legal
5
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.

Education
6
Conservation Law Foundation Inc

Conservation law foundation, inc. (clf) protects new england's environment for the benefit of all people and future generations. we use the law, science, and markets to create solutions that preserve and restore our natural resources,…

Environment
7
Toxic-Free Future F/K/a Washington Toxics Coalition

As a national leader in environmental health research and advocacy, toxic- free future uses the power of science, education, and activism, to drive strong laws and corporate responsibility that protect the health of all people and the…

Environment
8
Science & Environmental Health Network

In service to communities, the earth and future generations, the science and environmental health network forges science, ethics, and law into tools for action.

Environment
9
Clean Water Action

Clean water action is a national citizens organization working for clean, safe, and affrodable water, prevention of health threatening pollution, creation of environmentally safe jobs and busnesses and empowerment of people to make…

—
10
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
11
Environmental League of Massachusetts Inc

The organization's mission is to advocate for policy that meets the scale and urgency of our environmental challenges. as a massachusetts-based organization that engages in advocacy across a full spectrum of climate, environmental, and…

Environment
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado; the most unlike its peers is Bma Tenpoint Inc. 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

18 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. 18 of the 19 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
9/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CLEAN WATER FUND: $1,186,820 · EnvironmentCLEAN WATER FUNDCLEAN AND HEALTHY NEW YORK: $280,500 · EnvironmentCLEAN AND HEALTHY NEW YORKECOLOGY CENTER: $237,000 · EnvironmentECOLOGY CENTERDEFEND OUR HEALTH: $215,500 · EnvironmentDEFEND OUR HEALTHALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS: $195,500 · EnvironmentALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICSVERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC: $181,500 · EnvironmentVERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INCVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH & EDUCATION FUND INC: $176,500 · EnvironmentVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH & EDUCATION FUND INC+3 more: $183,500 · Environment+3 moreMARYLAND PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $60,000 · OtherSIERRA CLUB: $30,260 · OtherAmerican Sustainable Business Council: $28,500 · OtherCT COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: $7,500 · OtherBREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS: $50,000 · HealthBMA TENPOINT INC: $32,500 · ReligionLEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: $22,000 · EducationLatino Community Fund of Washington State: $15,000 · Human ServicesCONSERVATION COLORADO: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Environment$2,656,820Other$126,260Health$50,000Religion$32,500Education$22,000Human Services$15,000Civil Rights$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCLEAN WATER FUND: $1,186,820 over 8y, 3.2% of budgetCLEAN AND HEALTHY NEW YORK: $280,500 over 7y, 15% of budgetECOLOGY CENTER: $237,000 over 8y, 3.2% of budgetDEFEND OUR HEALTH: $215,500 over 7y, 3.7% of budgetALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS: $195,500 over 7y, 2.6% of budgetVERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL INC: $181,500 over 8y, 2.1% of budgetVERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH & EDUCATION FUND INC: $176,500 over 8y, 2.9% of budgetOregon Environmental Council: $87,000 over 7y, 0.8% of budgetNORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION NETWORK: $81,500 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetMARYLAND PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $60,000 over 6y, 8.5% of budgetBREAST CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS: $50,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetBMA TENPOINT INC: $32,500 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $30,260 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Sustainable Business Council: $28,500 over 3y, 4.7% of budgetLEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: $22,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetLatino Community Fund of Washington State: $15,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetCONSERVATION COLORADO: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

Environmental Defense…The John Merck FundPatagoniaorgNew Venture FundThe Marisla FoundationEnergy Action FundNatural Resources Def…United States Energy …Tides FoundationVanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodAmerican Endowment Fo…
Environmental Defense Fund IncorporatedNY19.7× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · The John Merck Fund · Patagoniaorg · New Venture Fund · The Marisla Foundation · Energy Action Fund · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Tides Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · American Endowment 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 Toxic-Free Future F/K/A Washington Toxics Coalition funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Toxic-Free Future F/K/A Washington Toxics Coalition. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 30%
  • Vermont Natural Resources Council Inc: 30% of income from government
  • Bma Tenpoint Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
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 Toxic-Free Future F/K/A Washington Toxics Coalition?

Find your warmest path to Toxic-Free Future F/K/A Washington Toxics Coalition 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 19 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 Toxic-Free Future F/K/A Washington Toxics Coalition’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