California · Nonprofit
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER (California) receives grants from 81 organizations whose IRS filings report $7,630,390 to it, the largest being Schlinger Family Foundation ($1,211,500). 55 of them have funded it in more than one year.
- Revenue FY2025
- $3.7M
- Funders on record
- 81
- Grants received
- $7.6M
- Net assets
- $14M
What Environmental Defense Center does
Mission
The organization protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy and legal action.
As stated on its FY2025 Form 990.
Programs
Ocean (issues regarding pollution to the marine environment, channel islands national park; national marine sanctuaries, offshore oil and gas development; wind development, marine species and ecosystems, marine protected areas, aquaculture, access and recreation for all consistent with ocean conservation): advocated for petitions for new and expanded marine protected areas before the ca fish and game comission and marine resources committee; worked to reduce impacts of ship strikes through vessel speed reductions; supported designation of the chumash heritage national marine sanctuary; sought thorough environmental review regarding the impacts of offshore wind and participated in ca energy comission offshore wind strategic plan process; helped ensure environmental impacts of aquaculture are addressed, including regarding a proposal for aquaculture opportunity areas and ocean rainforest project; advocated before state lands commission re environmental impacts of chevron toxic debris mounds; supported ab 3162 (prohibition on octopus farming) and acr 210 (supporting strengthening and enhancing marine protected areas).
$374,002 spent$78,485 earned by the program25% of program spendingLand and water (issues regarding land, wildlife, rivers, creeks, and watersheds of the central coast, vulnerable and threatened wildlife and ecosystems, access and recreation for all, compatible with resource conservation): monitored process in opposition to city of solvang's application to drill new wells that threaten endangered steelhead in the santa ynez river; litigated challenge to u.s. Forest service's approval of logging project at reyes peak in the los padres national forest on appeal; secured improved flow regime in santa maria river below twitchell dam to improve wildlife habitat pending compliance with environmental laws and commented on related environmental review document; advocated for state water resources control board denial of the bureau of reclamation's petition for reconsideration regarding the requirement for a fish passage study regarding the operations of bradbury dam on lake cachuma; supported california fish and game commission listing of steelhead as endangered under the state endangered species act; continued efforts to preserve naples including advocacy before county zoning administrator and appeal to planning commission of approval of development and…
$299,202 spent$62,788 earned by the program20% of program spendingClimate and energy (issues regarding oil and gas development, climate change, clean energy): opposed sable offshore corporation's proposal to restart damaged pipeline system and santa ynez unit platforms off gaviota coast and ensure adequate environmental review of potential impacts, including advocacy for county board denial of the transfer of permits from exxon to sable, advocacy before various agencies regarding pipeline restart approval processess and enforcement, and litigation under the public records act regarding release of sable's pipeline oil spill contingency plan; monitored application of general conservation plan for oil and gas activities in santa barbara county; submitted comments to calgem to support proposed phase-out of well stimulation treatments; supported sb 1304 (aquifer exemptions to ensure protection of safe drinking water), ab 1866 (requiring the oil industry to plug and abandon idle wells), ab 3233 (reinstating local control over oil and gas land use decisions) and sb 867 (the climate bond); sought thorough environmental review regarding the impacts of offshore wind and participated in ca energy commission offshore wind strategic plan process; advocated…
$598,404 spent$125,576 earned by the program40% of program spendingEnvironmental justice (issues regarding water quality, protecting disadvantaged communities from environmental harms): supported sb 1304 (aquifer exemptions to ensure protection of safe drinking water), ab 1866 (requiring the oil industry to plug and abandon idle wells), ab 3233 (reinstating local control over oil and gas land use decisions); sb 867 (the climate bond); and ab 1864 (improving notice re pesticide applications); monitored stormwater discharge program in ventura county to ensure regulation of potentially harmful sources of pollution; litigated challenge to u.s. Forest service's approval of logging project at reyes peak in the los padres national forest on appeal concerning impacts to tribal resources; opposed sable offshore corporation's proposal to restart damaged pipeline system and santa ynez unit platforms off gaviota coast and ensure adequate environmental review of potential impacts; submitted comments to calgem to support proposed phase-out of well stimulation treatments.
$224,400 spent$47,091 earned by the program15% of program spending
The 4 programs described on its FY2024 Form 990, listed largest first by expense. Program spending in total: $1,496,008.
The organization over time
Each line starts at 100 in 2017, so what you read is the shape rather than the size: 150 means half as much again as 2017, 50 means half. The number beside each label in the key is where it ended. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
Balance sheet
Total assets and total liabilities at each year end, in dollars. The largest one-year move in total assets was 2023 to 2024, from $6.7M to $13M (+90%).
How it's funded, over time
Each bar is one year's revenue split into where it came from, and every bar is the same height — these are shares, not amounts, so a year that raised twice as much looks the same size. Hover a bar for the split.
Government-grant reliance: 2021 14%. Grants only. Government contracts and fees sit inside program revenue.
55% of ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (93% for the typical peer).
Surplus & reserves
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 0 of the last 9 reported years ran a deficit.
reserve
Leadership and staff
The officers, directors, trustees and key employees listed on each return. Joined and no longer listed compare each filing with the year before, matching people by surname and first initial; a year after a gap, or a roster under three people, has no comparison.
Chief executive
Alex Katz
Executive director
As listed on its FY2025 Form 990.
Who funds it, year by year
2017 → 2023: the base broadened from 26 funders to 39 funders, grant income rose $360k → $1.1M.
17 of 81 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 32% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 81 funders by total. Association, not causation. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.
How concentrated its funding is
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 16% of grant income, and it takes 8 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 8 funders to its left
39% of the income these shares are computed over arrives through pass-through sponsors or from payers whose filings do not say what kind of payment it is. Concentration is still measured over all of it, because the money is real; what it does not support is a claim about how many institutions have chosen to fund ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER.
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 17% · 2018 17% · 2019 17% · 2020 24% · 2021 29% · 2022 28% · 2023 16% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.
How long its funders stay
57% of ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 68% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year. Measured to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving — a funder cannot be counted as lapsed in a year most filers have not reached.
Where its funders are
56% of ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER's grant income comes from California funders.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Funder states come from each funder’s own filing. $2.5M arriving through sponsors registered in 11 states is excluded from the map and the split above: a sponsor holds money on a donor’s behalf, so its registered address would place those dollars somewhere no donor need ever have been. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.
Against its field
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER runs a healthier operating margin than three-quarters of the 852 crime & legal nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 852 crime & legal nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2025
Organizations like ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER
Organizations whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over every organization in the US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
In California
Nationally
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
Where the money goes
73% of spending goes to programs.
Governance
Public support
56%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Footprint & structure
Files a return copy in 1 state
Screen this organization
A dated, signed PDF of the compliance screen for ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER: IRS status (Business Master File, Publication 78, auto-revocation), the OFAC sanctions lists, the Internal Revenue Bulletin, and California registration, with the Rev. Proc. 2018-32 §8.01 reliance elements stated element by element. Generated from the current files at the moment you download it.
Screens are triage, not determinations; a source that cannot be read reports not screened, never clear. Screen this nonprofit · How the screen works · on the API as GET /api/screening/{ein}?format=pdf
Questions and answers
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER?
- ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER (California) receives grants from 81 organizations whose IRS filings report $7,630,390 to it, the largest being Schlinger Family Foundation ($1,211,500). 55 of them have funded it in more than one year.
- How many funders does ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER have?
- IRS filings report 81 organizations giving $7,630,390 in grants to ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, 55 of which have funded it in more than one year.
- Who is the largest funder of ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER?
- Schlinger Family Foundation is the largest funder on record, with $1,211,500 in grants. The full list of funders is on this page.
- How can an organization like ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER find more funders?
- Start with the funders already giving here, then look at the foundations that back similar organizations in California. The funding by cause and by state pages list the largest funders for a given area and how to approach them.
Play a game about who funds Environmental Defense Center →
These figures are read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML: this organization’s own return for FY2025 (financials across 2017–2025), and the filings of 81 funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. Trends on this page end at FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving; later years are shown and marked, and move no figure. Data on this page was exported October 22, 2026. What this page cannot tell you · view filing