Skip to content

· Public charity

Women for a Healthy Environment

WOMEN FOR A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT uses a scientific approach to achieve equitable lives free of environmental hazards through advocacy and community-based programs.

$192k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$37k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Environment$516kHealth$352kEducation$43kHuman Services$43kCommunity Improvement$31kHousing & Shelter$11k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $155,617, the rows itemized in this filing. The $191,504 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $35,887 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $35k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $120k
$11,250
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AVONWORTH SCHOOL DISTRICT$36,685
MCCOYS LERNING CENTER$18,533
HOMEWOOD BRUSHTON YMCA$15,258
INDIANA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT - HORACE MANN ELEM SENIOR HIGH$14,870
SUNRISE SCHOOL$12,857
THE TOT SPOT$11,250
TEENIE TOTS CHILDCARE CENTER$10,863
RIVERVIEW CHILDREN'S CENTER$9,153
CLAIRTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT$8,993
A S WEE CAREERIC YOUNG CHILD CARE$5,985
WEST MIFFLIN - CLARA BARTON ELEM HOMEVILLE ELEM$5,670
LEARNING TO LEARN$5,500
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 (FY25–25, $24k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%RIVERVIEW CHILDREN'S CENTER: $9k → 11%HOMEWOOD BRUSHTON YMCA: $15k → 11%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.
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.

32%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$321k · 12 repeat orgs$676k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
46

Total granted

$321k
$541k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-8%
+12%

Still filing today

33%
4%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 13% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $135k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterEducationOther
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

  • AI
    ALLEGHENY INTERMEDIATE UNIT
    2× · 2019–2020 · $35k
  • NH
    NORTH HILLS SD
    3× · 2019–2024 · $31k
  • PR
    PENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC
    3× · 2019–2022 · $31k · revenue -8%

Funded once

  • WH
    WOODLAND HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT
    one grant, 2019 · $35k
  • PS
    PINE-RICHLAND SD
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
  • CA
    Connellsville Area School District
    one grant, 2019 · $22k
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
Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy

We improve quality of life by enhancing and stewarding pittsburgh's parks in partnership with the community.

Recreation & Sports
2
Pennsylvania Environmental Council Inc

The pennsylvania environmental council (pec) protects and restores the natural and built environments through innovation, collaboration, education, and advocacy. pec believes in the value of partnerships with the private sector,…

Environment
3
Sustainable Pittsburgh

Provide information to decision maker in the pittsburgh region to promote economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental quality for sustainable solutions for communities and businesses.

Environment
4
Pittsburgh Green Innovators Inc

Pittsburgh green innovators, inc. is committed to growing a vibrant green economy and community by collaboratively leveraging regional strengths through innovation, education, workforce development, and cultivation of sustainable business…

Human Services
5
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future

The mission of pennfuture is to lead the transition to a clean energy economy in pennsylvania and beyond. pennfuture is protecting our air, water and land, and empowering citizens to build sustainable communities for future generations.

Environment
6
Regional Workforce Collaborative - Swpa

To provide policy guidance, technical assistance, and program oversight for the city of pittsburgh and allegheny county, and to assist in the economic development of southwestern pa region.

Community Improvement
7
Pittsburgh Works Together Inc

Educate and advocate on behalf of the construction, energy, and manufacturing industries and the resulting economic and job growth in pennsylvania.

Community Improvement
8
Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment G

PCRG is a coalition of community leaders working for economic justice, equitable investment practices and sufficient financial resources to revitalize communities throughout Allegheny County, PA

Community Improvement
9
World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh

The world affairs council of pittsburgh's mission is to convene and connect people around global issues to build a competitive, thriving, and inclusive pittsburgh.

International
10
Connect

Connect encourages cross-sector collaboration to achieve improved community health, well-being, and civic resilience in pittsburgh, pennsylvania.

Philanthropy
11
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

The western pennsylvania conservancy protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations. the conservancy…

Environment
12
Philadelphia Green Capital Corp

The philadelphia green capital corp. connects projects to capital (public, private and philanthropic) to drive a robust, equitable clean energy market in the greater philadelphia region, support the philadelphia energy authority, and…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Consultants Inc; the most unlike its peers is Young Men's Christian Association of Greater Pittsburgh. 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

9 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. 9 of the 68 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AVONWORTH SCHOOL DISTRICT: $36,685 · OtherWOODLAND HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT: $35,346 · OtherALLEGHENY INTERMEDIATE UNIT: $35,332 · OtherNORTH HILLS SD: $30,848 · OtherALLIANCE FOR INFANTS & TODDLERS: $30,750 · Other+55 more: $669,209 · Other+55 morePENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC: $30,750 · EnvironmentPENNENVIR…CLEAN WATER FUND: $30,750 · EnvironmentCLEAN WAT…GROUNDED STRATEGIES: $18,750 · EnvironmentGROUNDED …Pittsburgh United: $30,750 · Community ImprovementYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $15,258 · Human ServicesRIVERVIEW CHILDRENS CENTER: $9,153 · Human ServicesGREENSBURG SALEM EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $11,860 · EducationREBUILDING TOGETHER PITTSBURGH: $11,250 · Housing & Shelter
Other$838,170Environment$80,250Community Improvement$30,750Human Services$24,411Education$11,860Housing & Shelter$11,250

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC: $30,750 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetCLEAN WATER FUND: $30,750 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetPittsburgh United: $30,750 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetGROUNDED STRATEGIES: $18,750 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH: $15,258 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCONSERVATION CONSULTANTS INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGREENSBURG SALEM EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $11,860 over 1y, 6.9% of budgetREBUILDING TOGETHER PITTSBURGH: $11,250 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetRIVERVIEW CHILDRENS CENTER: $9,153 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

  • Who funds PENNENVIRONMENT RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CLEAN WATER FUND ↗
  • Who funds Pittsburgh United ↗
  • Who funds GROUNDED STRATEGIES ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF GREATER PITTSBURGH ↗
  • Who funds CONSERVATION CONSULTANTS INC ↗
  • Who funds GREENSBURG SALEM EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗

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.

The Pittsburgh FoundationPA29.4× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Pittsburgh Foundation · The Grable Foundation · Project Lead the Way Inc · Share Our Strength · The Heinz Endowments · McAuley Ministries · Jefferson Regional Foundation · Richard King Mellon Foundation · Project Lead the Way Inc · Tickets for Kids Foundation · Invest Pgh Inc · The Buhl 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 Women for a Healthy Environment funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Women for a Healthy Environment. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–20%
    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 68 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 Women for a Healthy Environment’s filings →

    More from the funding graph