Skip to content
Western Resource Advocates at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

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.

$154k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$150k
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 2024.

Environment$2.0MMembership Benefit$70kCivil Rights$50kCommunity Improvement$40k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $150,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $154,284 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,284 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.
$150,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WRA Action Fund$150,000
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 (FY21–21, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%FAITH IN ACTION NEVADA: $15k → 10%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

NY
OR
NV
WY
CA
UT
CO
AZ
NM
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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 9 repeat orgs$766k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
19

Total granted

$1.5M
$766k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
+25%

Still filing today

78%
79%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentCivil RightsHuman ServicesInternationalCommunity ImprovementPublic 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

  • WA
    WRA Action Fund
    4× · 2021–2025 · $700k · revenue +4% · 86% of their budget
  • IE
    Interwest Energy Alliance
    2× · 2017–2019 · $125k · revenue +98%
  • AC
    ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
    4× · 2017–2020 · $100k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • CC
    CONSERVATION COLORADO
    one grant, 2019 · $200k · revenue -38%
  • ST
    SIGNAL TECH COALITION
    one grant, 2020 · $100k
  • The Partnership Project Inc
    one grant, 2018 · $60k · revenue +25%
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
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…

—
3
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
4
Great Basin Resource Watch

Natural resource protection: Protected communities and the environment from the negative impacts of mineral development; provided support to communities impacted by mining

Environment
5
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
6
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah

Heal utah's mission is to protect utah's environment and its people by promoting clean air, clean energy, and comprehensive solutions to radioactive and toxic waste.

Environment
7
Northwest Environmental Advocates

Work through advocacy and education to use federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act to protect and restore water quality and habit in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide.

Environment
8
Living Rivers

Living rivers promotes river restoration through mobilization by articulating conservation and alternative management strategies to the public. seeking to revive the natural habitat and spirit of rivers by undoing the extensive damage done…

Environment
9
Southwest Energy Efficiency Project

To ensure a healthy, equitable and low carbon future by promoting energy efficiency, electrification, and clean transportation in colorado, utah, arizona, new mexico, nevada, and wyoming by working on policy/program development,analysis…

Environment
10
Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—
11
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
12
Environmental Defense Action Fund

To advocate for legislation and policies that protect the environment.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Colorado; the most unlike its peers is Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest. 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

22 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. 22 of the 28 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
15/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WRA Action Fund: $700,000 · OtherWRA Action FundCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: $227,705 · OtherCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITYSIGNAL TECH COALITION: $100,000 · OtherSIGNAL TECH COALITIONUNIVERSITY OF UTAH: $50,000 · Other+6 more: $110,200 · Other+6 morePOWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL: $140,000 · EnvironmentPOWDER RIVER BASIN RESOUR…UTAH CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE INC: $75,000 · EnvironmentUTAH CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANC…The Partnership Project Inc: $59,500 · EnvironmentThe Partnership Project I…ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $50,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUN…AMERICAN RIVERS INC: $45,800 · EnvironmentAMERICAN RIVERS INCBlack Mesa Trust inc: $40,000 · EnvironmentBlack Mesa Trust incRIVER NETWORK: $32,000 · EnvironmentRIVER NETWORKCenter for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies: $25,000 · EnvironmentRENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT DBA RENEWABLE NORTHWEST: $25,000 · Environment+2 more: $18,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION COLORADO: $200,000 · Civil RightsCONSERVATION CO…ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $100,000 · Civil RightsARIZONA CENTER …CONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO EDUCATION FUND: $25,000 · Civil RightsCONSERVATION VO…Interwest Energy Alliance: $125,000 · Community ImprovementPROSPERITY WORKS: $95,000 · Membership BenefitTO NIZHONI ANI: $45,000 · EducationUTAH FOUNDATION: $25,000 · Public Benefit
Other$1,187,905Environment$510,300Civil Rights$325,000Community Improvement$125,000Membership Benefit$95,000Education$45,000Public Benefit$25,000

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 budgetWRA Action Fund: $700,000 over 4y, 86% of budgetCONSERVATION COLORADO: $200,000 over 1y, 7.8% of budgetPOWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL: $140,000 over 3y, 7.5% of budgetInterwest Energy Alliance: $125,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: $100,000 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetPROSPERITY WORKS: $95,000 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetUTAH CLEAN ENERGY ALLIANCE INC: $75,000 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetThe Partnership Project Inc: $59,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN RIVERS INC: $45,800 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTO NIZHONI ANI: $45,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetBlack Mesa Trust inc: $40,000 over 1y, 20% of budgetRIVER NETWORK: $32,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetUTAH FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetCenter for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies: $25,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetRENEWABLE NORTHWEST PROJECT DBA RENEWABLE NORTHWEST: $25,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCONSERVATION VOTERS NEW MEXICO EDUCATION FUND: $25,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetACTING IN COMMUNITY TOGETHER IN ORGANIZING NORTHERN NEVADA: $15,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetONE APIA NEVADA: $15,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetFRIENDS Of Great Salt Lake: $10,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetBONNEVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION: $8,000 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 …PatagoniaorgTides FoundationWestern Conservation …The Energy FoundationNew Venture FundAmalgamated Charitabl…Environmental Defense…The Nature ConservancyEnergy Action FundNatural Resources Def…The Pew Charitable Tr…
United States Energy FoundationCA23.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Tides Foundation · Western Conservation Foundation · The Energy Foundation · New Venture Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · The Nature Conservancy · Energy Action Fund · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · The Pew Charitable Trusts

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 Western Resource Advocates funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Western Resource Advocates. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Bonneville Environmental Foundation: 100% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely 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.

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 28 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Western Resource Advocates’ 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