Skip to content
West Harlem Environmental Action Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

West Harlem Environmental Action Inc

To build healty communities by ensuring that people of color and/or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices.

$2.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
19
Grants FY2024still arriving
13
States reached
$147k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Environment$4.4MCommunity Improvement$664kYouth Development$279kPublic Benefit$251kEducation$219kHousing & Shelter$203kArts & Culture$156kCrime & Legal$150kOther$0
02FY2024 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 19 grants below total $1,275,397, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,961,151 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $685,754 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–50k5 grants · $148k
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $1.1M
$52,500
Median grant
13
States reached
$22M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL JUST$147,054
PEOPLE UNITED FOR SUSTAINABLE$130,000
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY$122,009
ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY &$105,000
PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY Recovery$100,000
GREEN DOOR INITIATIVE$77,500
DUWANISH RIVER COMMUNITY COAL$77,500
SOUTH WARD ENVIRONMENTAL ALLI$62,000
PRATT INSTITUE$54,334
CENTER FOR COMMUNITY STEWARDS$52,500
TEXAS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE A$50,000
WEST ATLANTA WATERSHED ALLIAN$50,000
ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TO$50,000
SOCIALAND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTER$50,000
GREEN LATINOS$35,000
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 (FY20–23, $262k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST HUNGER: $50k → 20%TOTAL COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $106k → 23%OPEN BUFFALO INC: $64k → 13%OPEN BUFFALO INC: $43k → 13%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
WA
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
PA
NJ
CA
CO
VA
MD
AZ
KS
TN
NC
SC
LA
GA
TX
FL
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.

38%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 17 repeat orgs$4.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +80% since the first grant, against +32% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
52

Total granted

$2.5M
$3.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+80%
+32%

Still filing today

88%
73%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $409k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationHousing & ShelterPublic BenefitOther
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

  • PU
    PEOPLE UNITED FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING INC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $314k · revenue +28%
  • PF
    PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERY
    3× · 2020–2024 · $220k · revenue +832%
  • AF
    ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT INC
    2× · 2022–2024 · $205k · revenue +69%

Funded once

  • WA
    WE ACT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CENTER INC
    one grant, 2023 · $1.3M
  • SS
    Soulful Synergy LLC
    one grant, 2022 · $279k
  • SJ
    Sowing Justice
    one grant, 2023 · $150k
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
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice

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.

Environment
2
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
3
West Harlem Environmental Action Inc

To build healty communities by ensuring that people of color and/or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices.

Environment
4
Energy Justice Law and Policy Center

The organization is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or corresponding section of any future federal tax code.

Environment
5
New York City Environmental Justice Alliance Inc

Founded in 1991, the new york city environmental justice alliance (nyc-eja) is a non-profit, 501(c)3 city-wide membership network linking grassroots organizations from low-income neighborhoods and communities of color in their struggle for…

Environment
6
Educator Collective for Envionmental Justice Inc

Environmental Justice & Equality

Education
7
Toxics Action Center Inc

To organize side-by-side with communities, providing them with the skills and resources needed to prevent or clean up pollution at the local level.

Environment
8
Nature for Justice

To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.

Environment
9
Green Worker Inc

The organization is based in the south bronx and serves immigrants and communities of color by building, growing, and sustaining worker-owned green businesses to create a strong, local, and democratic economy rooted in racial and gender…

Environment
10
Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice

The organization is known as the leader in the movement and is seen as the "go to" experts on environmental justice and sustainable redevelopment because of its knowledge and its network.

Health
11
Little Village Environmental Justice Org

In addition, the organization provided fiscal agency services to the Chicago Frontlines Funding Initiative and Chicago Asian Americans for Environmental Justice.

Recreation & Sports
12
Partners for Environmental Justice

The mission of pej is to promote understanding and protection of urban wetlands, enhance community pride, and encourage economic development.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc; the most unlike its peers is New York University. 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

62 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. 62 of the 78 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
23
Early backer (in before they grew)
61/62
Grantees still filing
44/62
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WE ACT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CENTER INC: $1,337,238 · EnvironmentWE ACT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CENTER INCNew Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance: $325,054 · EnvironmentNew Jersey Environmental Justice AllianceSowing Justice: $150,000 · EnvironmentThe Green Door Initiative: $149,000 · EnvironmentGreenLatinos: $140,000 · EnvironmentDuwamish River Cleanup Coalition - TAG: $139,000 · Environment+17 more: $739,500 · Environment+17 moreSoulful Synergy LLC: $278,720 · OtherSoulful Synergy LLCPEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERY: $220,000 · OtherPEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERYWATER COLLABORATIVE OF GREATER NEW ORLEANS: $131,166 · OtherWATER COLLABORATIVE OF GREATER NEW…USL TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING INC: $125,000 · OtherUSL TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING INCCLEANAIRNOW ASSOCIATION: $110,000 · OtherCLEANAIRNOW ASSOCIATIONPUBLIC POLICY AND EDUCATION FUND: $106,166 · OtherCIVIC STUDIO NEW ORLEANS LLC: $106,166 · OtherNOPI INC: $125,000 · OtherNOPI INC+25 more: $797,500 · Other+25 moreALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT INC: $205,000 · Community ImprovementCENTER FOR COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP: $52,500 · Community ImprovementWE STAY-NOS QUEDAMOS INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementKITE'S NEST INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementCooper Square Community Development Committee Inc: $50,000 · Community ImprovementNew York Communities Organizing Fund Inc: $25,000 · Community ImprovementNORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION: $20,000 · Community ImprovementGOOD OLD LOWER EAST SIDE INC: $20,000 · Community Improvement+4 more: $36,000 · Community ImprovementPEOPLE UNITED FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING INC: $314,000 · Housing & ShelterHEART OF THE CITY NEIGHBORHOODS INC: $151,166 · Housing & Shelter+1 more: $10,000 · Housing & ShelterOpen Buffalo Inc: $106,166 · Human ServicesTOTAL COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $106,166 · Human ServicesTHE CAMPAIGN AGAINST HUNGER INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesNew York University: $122,009 · EducationPRATT INSTITUTE: $90,000 · EducationThe New School: $7,455 · EducationVIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $150,000 · Crime & Legal
Environment$2,979,792Other$1,999,718Community Improvement$508,500Housing & Shelter$475,166Human Services$262,332Education$219,464Crime & Legal$150,000

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 budgetNew Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance: $325,054 over 3y, 11% of budgetPEOPLE UNITED FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING INC: $314,000 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetPEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERY: $220,000 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetALTERNATIVES FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT INC: $205,000 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetHEART OF THE CITY NEIGHBORHOODS INC: $151,166 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetVIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $150,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetThe Green Door Initiative: $149,000 over 3y, 5.0% of budgetGreenLatinos: $140,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetDuwamish River Cleanup Coalition - TAG: $139,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetNOPI INC: $125,000 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetNew York University: $122,009 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCLEANAIRNOW ASSOCIATION: $110,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetOpen Buffalo Inc: $106,166 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetTOTAL COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $106,166 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPRATT INSTITUTE: $90,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED PARENTS AGAINST LEAD - UPAL: $75,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS: $75,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetWATER COLLABORATIVE OF GREATER NEW ORLEANS: $65,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetASSOCIATION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD & HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: $62,500 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetSOUTH WARD ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE: $62,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetTEXAS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY: $60,000 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetAlliance for Global Justice Corp: $60,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetWest Atlanta Watershed Alliance: $60,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetCENTER FOR COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP: $52,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetWE STAY-NOS QUEDAMOS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetSOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSure We Can Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetMEDIA ALLIANCE INC: $50,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetGUARDIANS OF FLUSHING BAY INC: $50,000 over 1y, 32% of budgetGROUNDWORK HUDSON VALLEY INC: $50,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetKITE'S NEST INC: $50,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetONONDAGA EARTH CORPS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetTHE CAMPAIGN AGAINST HUNGER INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCooper Square Community Development Committee Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetLONG BEACH LATINO CIVIC ASSOC: $50,000 over 1y, 26% of budgetVolunteers Improving Neighborhood Environments Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetGREENROOTS INC: $32,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSouth Bronx United Inc: $27,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetACTION IN MONTGOMERY INC: $27,500 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetNEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP FUND INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNew York Communities Organizing Fund Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetPUBLIC POLICY AND EDUCATION FUND OF NEW YORK INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGOOD OLD LOWER EAST SIDE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCHESTER RESIDENTS CONCERNED FOR QUALITY LIVING: $20,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetNew York Communities For Change Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNorth Carolina Association of Black Lawyer Land Loss Prevention Projec: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTallahassee Food Network: $10,000 over 1y, 17% 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.

Windward FundUnited States Energy …Amalgamated Charitabl…Social and Environmen…Solutions Project IncMovement Strategy Cen…PatagoniaorgTides FoundationNew York FoundationNatural Resources Def…Tides CenterThe Schmidt Family Fo…
Windward FundDC55.9× affinity27 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Windward Fund · United States Energy Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc · Solutions Project Inc · Movement Strategy Center · Patagoniaorg · Tides Foundation · New York Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Tides Center · The Schmidt Family 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 West Harlem Environmental Action Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from West Harlem Environmental Action Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 14%
  • New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance: 39% of income from government
  • Nopi Inc: 14% of income from government
  • Greenroots Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
29report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 West Harlem Environmental Action Inc?

Find your warmest path to West Harlem Environmental Action Inc 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 78 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 West Harlem Environmental Action’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