Environmental nonprofits operate within a broad U.S. social sector that includes conservation groups, animal organizations, foundations, and public-benefit institutions. The available figures show how the environmental and animal nonprofit category changed between 2008 and 2012, how the wider nonprofit economy is sized, and how giving, trust, and donor behavior looked in 2024–2026 reporting.
Contents
- The nonprofit sector in the United States
- Environmental and animal nonprofits in IRS filings
- Assets, revenue, and expenses
- Where nonprofit activity is concentrated
- Fundraising patterns in 2025
- Organization size and gift patterns
- Trust and ways people give
The nonprofit sector in the United States
Candid’s U.S. Social Sector Dashboard reports about 1.9 million registered nonprofits in the United States. The same dashboard estimates that U.S. nonprofits raise an aggregate $3.7 trillion each year and spend $3.5 trillion each year. These are sector-wide estimates, not figures limited to environmental organizations.
Candid also estimates that 12.5 million people work for U.S. nonprofits. On that measure, nonprofits are the third largest employer in the country. The employment figure describes the full nonprofit sector, including organizations whose work is unrelated to the environment, animals, or local heritage.
These totals help put environmental nonprofit statistics in context. An environmental group may be locally focused, nationally active, or part of a larger category that also includes animal organizations. Sector-wide totals should therefore be read as background scale rather than as a direct estimate of the resources available to environmental organizations.
Environmental and animal nonprofits in IRS filings
IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin figures provide a narrower view of organizations classified together as environmental and animal nonprofits. In tax year 2008, this group filed 13,855 Form 990 or Form 990-EZ returns. The organizations reported $38,667 million in total assets, $32,411 million in net assets, and $13,899 million in total revenue.
Their reported contributions, gifts, and grants totaled $9,749 million in 2008. Program service revenue totaled $3,371 million. Total expenses were $12,829 million, and excess revenue over expenses was $1,070 million.
The IRS SOI Bulletin Fall 2011 is the source label for all of those 2008 figures. They describe tax-year reporting by the classified group, rather than a current count of every environmental nonprofit operating in the United States.
For tax year 2010, the same broad environmental and animal category filed 12,312 returns, according to the IRS SOI Bulletin Winter 2014. Total assets were $41,563 million and net assets were $35,029 million. Total revenue reached $14,683 million, including $9,833 million in contributions, gifts, and grants and $3,688 million in program service revenue. Total expenses were $13,718 million.
The 2012 figures, reported by the IRS SOI Bulletin Fall 2012, show 14,468 returns. Total assets were $42,076 million, while net assets were $35,062 million. Total revenue was $14,893 million and total expenses were $13,705 million. The available 2012 figures do not include a separate amount for contributions, gifts, and grants, program service revenue, or excess revenue over expenses.
Assets, revenue, and expenses
The reported figures provide several distinct measures of organizational scale. Total assets describe the resources held by the organizations at the reporting date. Net assets describe the amount remaining after liabilities. Revenue records inflows during the tax year, while expenses record reported outflows during that year.
| Tax year | Returns | Total assets | Net assets | Total revenue | Total expenses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 13,855 | $38,667 million | $32,411 million | $13,899 million | $12,829 million |
| 2010 | 12,312 | $41,563 million | $35,029 million | $14,683 million | $13,718 million |
| 2012 | 14,468 | $42,076 million | $35,062 million | $14,893 million | $13,705 million |
The table should be read as a set of reported snapshots. The return count was 13,855 in 2008, 12,312 in 2010, and 14,468 in 2012. Total assets were reported at $38,667 million, $41,563 million, and $42,076 million in those same tax years. Net assets were $32,411 million in 2008, $35,029 million in 2010, and $35,062 million in 2012.
The financial measures also distinguish income sources. In 2008, contributions, gifts, and grants of $9,749 million were larger than program service revenue of $3,371 million. In 2010, those amounts were $9,833 million and $3,688 million, respectively. The two categories are not interchangeable: one reflects contributed support, while the other reflects revenue from program services.
The 2008 report included $1,070 million in excess revenue over expenses. That figure is not supplied for 2010 or 2012, so no comparable three-year series can be stated here. The 2012 revenue and expense totals were $14,893 million and $13,705 million, respectively, while the 2010 totals were $14,683 million and $13,718 million.
Where nonprofit activity is concentrated
Candid’s 2024 sector map illustrates how nonprofit presence differs by state and district. Washington, D.C. had over 200 nonprofits per 10,000 residents. Iowa had almost 100 nonprofits per 10,000 residents, while Montana had slightly above 100 nonprofits per 10,000 residents.
The same Candid source reports that North Dakota, Arkansas, and Wyoming each had fewer than 10,000 nonprofits. Those are counts of nonprofits, not rates per 10,000 residents, so they should not be directly compared with the Washington, D.C., Iowa, or Montana density figures.
Candid’s 2024 giving analysis also reports that environment and animals funding increased from 5% to 7% of the giving mix. The measure identifies a share of the reported giving mix; it does not provide a dollar total for environmental giving in the supplied figures.
For readers interested in local history and heritage, geographic context matters because nonprofit density and nonprofit counts describe different dimensions of civic infrastructure. A place can have a high nonprofit rate per resident without the supplied figures establishing its environmental organizations’ budgets, staffing, or program reach.
Fundraising patterns in 2025
Blackbaud Institute’s 2025 Trends in Giving sampled more than 7,500 nonprofits. In that report, the weighted median organization closed 2025 up about 4.3% year over year. The timing of revenue was uneven: 36.1% of annual revenue arrived in the fourth quarter, and December accounted for about 18% of all giving.
The report also describes differences by organization size. Large organizations ended 2025 up 11.7% year over year. Midsize organizations ended the year up 2.0%, while small organizations ended 2025 down 6.4%.
Fundraising composition varied by gift size. Mid- and major gifts of at least $1,000 grew about 4.7% year over year in 2025. Low-level gifts below $1,000 fell about 1.1%. Online giving grew about 11% year over year, and the median online gift size in December 2025 was about $364.
The average gift size nearly doubled from $727 in 2016 to $1,346 in 2025. These are reported average values across the relevant Blackbaud measure, while the December online figure is a median. Average and median figures answer different questions and should not be treated as equivalent.
Blackbaud reported that environment organizations relied on year-end giving for about 38.9% of their fundraising in 2025. Foundations relied on year-end giving for about 40.8%, and public and society benefit organizations relied on it for about 39.6%. The environment figure is therefore close to, but distinct from, the corresponding figures for the other two categories.
Organization size and gift patterns
Blackbaud’s 2025 results show a strong relationship between organizational size and gift patterns. Large organizations averaged about $2,000 per gift in 2025, compared with about $461 per gift for small organizations. Large organizations received 84.5% of annual revenue from major gifts, while small organizations received 51.7% from major gifts.
| Organization group | 2025 year-over-year result | Average gift in 2025 | Annual revenue from major gifts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Large | +11.7% | About $2,000 | 84.5% |
| Midsize | +2.0% | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Small | -6.4% | About $461 | 51.7% |
The supplied figures do not establish that size alone caused the differences. They do show that the reported fundraising environment was not uniform across organizations. A local environmental or heritage nonprofit may experience a different mix of recurring gifts, major gifts, online donations, and year-end support than the large or small groups represented in the sector report.
The timing data is especially relevant for planning around public-facing campaigns. Across the Blackbaud sample, more than one-third of annual revenue arrived in the fourth quarter, and December represented about 18% of all giving. For environment organizations specifically, year-end giving represented about 38.9% of fundraising in 2025.
Trust and ways people give
Give.org’s Donor Trust Report 2026 found that 67.7% of respondents said trust is essential before donating to a charity. Only 18.3% reported high trust in charities overall. These are survey responses about donor attitudes, not audited measures of nonprofit performance.
Environmental organizations had 19% high trust in 2025, up from 15% in 2024. Animal welfare organizations had 26% high trust in 2025, up from 23% in 2024. Over the 2017–2025 period, environmental organizations were one of four categories that fluctuated by at least seven percentage points in high trust.
The same Give.org report found that the share of respondents who said they would like charities to approach them more reached 42% in December 2025. That result describes willingness to be approached, not a guarantee that an outreach campaign will produce a donation.
People also identified several ways to make a difference. In December 2025, 58% of respondents said donating items such as food or clothing was one of the most impactful ways to make a difference. Forty-eight percent selected volunteering time, and 45% selected donating money to a charity.
For environmental nonprofits, these figures place financial appeals alongside volunteering and in-kind support. They also make trust a central measurement: the report’s 19% high-trust result for environmental organizations in 2025 was higher than the 15% reported for 2024, but still describes only the survey measure supplied by Give.org.