The Sierra Club has been part of America’s conservation story for well over a century. It started in 1892 with a simple idea that still holds up: get people outdoors, connect them to the places they love, and they will fight to protect them.
In this episode of the Charity Charge Show, host Stephen Garten sits down with Dan Chu, Executive Director of the Sierra Club Foundation, to talk about what that mission looks like today, how the organization is structured, and what nonprofit leaders can learn from a legacy institution operating in a tough political and economic climate.
This conversation covers a lot of ground: the Sierra Club’s dual entity setup, the role of community outings, the reality of public lands politics, and how large foundations should think about their “other 95%” beyond annual grantmaking. It is a practical look at what it takes to fund, govern, and sustain mission work for the long haul.
Overview
Episode Guest: Dan Chu, Executive Director, Sierra Club Foundation
Dan Chu leads the Sierra Club Foundation, the 501(c)(3) that funds the Sierra Club’s charitable work. The Sierra Club itself is a membership organization with a 501(c)(4) structure that allows more direct lobbying and political activity using non-deductible dollars.
If you run a nonprofit that touches public policy, advocacy, or public education, you have probably seen this model before. This episode is a clear explanation of why it exists and how it works when done correctly.
The Sierra Club’s mission in plain terms
Dan frames the Sierra Club Foundation’s work around protecting people and planet. He describes three major crises shaping their priorities:
1) The extinction crisis
Thousands, and potentially millions, of species are at risk. Habitat loss, ecosystem collapse, and human development pressures are real and accelerating. Conservation is not a “nice to have.” It is damage control for the living systems that support human life.
2) The climate crisis
The climate is becoming less stable, and the costs are not theoretical. Disasters, drought, fires, and long-term health impacts are showing up in everyday life, not just in reports.
3) The disconnect between people and nature
Dan argues that this may be one of the most overlooked problems. When people lose a personal connection to the outdoors, they stop caring about protecting it. You cannot defend what you do not value, and most people do not value what they never experience.
That third point leads to one of the most important parts of the conversation: the Sierra Club’s long-standing focus on getting people outside.
Why outings are not a side project
When many people think about the Sierra Club, they picture hikes and outdoor trips. Dan makes the case that those outings are not just recreation. They are a strategy.
The Sierra Club’s model has always relied on building community through shared outdoor experiences. Local outings can include hikes, kayaking, biking, and service projects like trail maintenance or waterway improvement. They also run larger national and international outings that require more coordination and support.
The point is bigger than a weekend hike.
When people spend time outdoors together, they form relationships, learn what is at stake, and become more willing to fight for protection of land, water, and wildlife. Dan also notes that outdoor experiences can help bridge political divides, because the lived experience of public lands often overrides online tribalism.
Stephen adds a practical detail for listeners: beyond state chapters, many areas have local groups that organize these outings at the city or county level. If you are looking for a way to get involved, you do not have to start at the national level.
The dual structure: why the Sierra Club has a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4)
This was one of the most valuable parts of the episode, especially for nonprofit leaders who are considering advocacy or policy work.
Dan explains that in the mid-1960s, the Sierra Club ran a major campaign to stop the damming of the Grand Canyon. The Club published a full-page ad comparing the proposal to flooding the Sistine Chapel. The campaign drew massive public attention and political pressure.
The IRS then challenged the Sierra Club’s use of 501(c)(3) dollars for lobbying activity and removed its c3 status. The Sierra Club Foundation, formed in 1960, retained its c3 standing and became the vehicle for tax-deductible charitable funding.
Today, the separation is clear:
- The Sierra Club Foundation (501(c)(3)) raises tax-deductible dollars and funds strictly charitable activities.
- The Sierra Club (501(c)(4)) uses non-deductible dollars, often from membership revenue, and can do more direct lobbying and political work.
- The Sierra Club also has state chapters and a broader on-the-ground network that operates within the c4 framework.
Stephen points out something many operators already know: this is a common structure for mission-driven organizations that engage in both education and policy.
Tell it like it is: if you want to do serious advocacy, you need the right structure and the discipline to keep the lines clean.
Public lands, common ground, and political reality
Dan does not dodge the political environment. He describes the current moment as difficult and unstable for conservation, with real threats to public lands, public waters, and the laws that protect them.
But he also points to common ground that still exists.
He shares his experience working in Wyoming, where many of the most committed public lands supporters were hunters and anglers. For them, public lands mean access, freedom, and a kind of democracy that does not require paying thousands of dollars to be in beautiful places.
This is an important reminder for nonprofit leaders in any issue area: you can win arguments online and still lose the public. If you want durable support, you have to speak to values people already hold, not just your own internal language.
Stephen adds an example from environmental policy framing: when leaders made pollution about immediate public health impacts, they gained traction that long-term arguments did not.
That is not “selling out.” That is meeting people where they actually live.
AI, data centers, and who pays the utility bill
The conversation then shifts into a modern tension that more nonprofits will have to address in some form: technology expansion, infrastructure strain, and public cost.
Stephen asks about the “AI race,” the growth of data centers, and the energy needs behind it. Dan shares concerns about the scale of speculative investment in data centers, the strain on the grid, and the downstream effect on ratepayers.
Stephen brings it home with a lived frustration many homeowners share: you can swap in LEDs and buy efficient appliances, and your utility costs still climb.
He also points out something that makes people angry for a good reason: when individuals face restrictions and moral pressure to conserve, while municipalities and large systems leak or waste massive resources.
Dan’s response is direct: powerful players often externalize costs downward, pushing burdens onto average citizens. Utility systems should protect the individual customer first, not treat households as the “flex” solution while major industrial demand drives the bill.
For nonprofit leaders, this is a real messaging lesson. People accept sacrifice when it is fair. When it is not, they disengage.
Fundraising and the “other 95%” problem
Stephen raises a topic that hits close to home for nonprofit executives: most organizations do not have the funding they need, and even major institutions feel that pressure.
Dan discusses the Sierra Club Foundation’s role as an asset owner, with assets under management that can fluctuate based on bequests, multi-year grants, and charitable annuity structures.
Then he makes a point that should make every foundation board squirm a little:
Every dollar has impact. There is no neutral money.
Boards often focus on the 5% payout requirement and ignore what the other 95% is invested in. Dan argues that if a foundation’s investments support extractive industries, the 5% they grant out might be fighting against the damage funded by the rest of the portfolio.
He also describes several ways foundations can push beyond grantmaking:
- Active ownership and shareholder engagement (proxy voting, resolutions, collective investor pressure)
- Catalytic investing (early, patient capital that attracts follow-on funding)
- Systems-level policy work (especially around fiduciary duty and large asset owners like public pension funds)
Dan’s point is traditional and practical: if you are going to claim a mission, your money should not undermine it.
Board governance: what actually works
Stephen asks one of the most useful questions for nonprofit leaders: what do you do when your board is weak, distracted, or not pulling its weight?
Dan’s answer is not complicated, and that is why it matters:
- Clarity on what you are doing together
Strategic planning is not just a document. It is agreement on priorities. - Clarity on how you work together
This is culture and governance. Roles, expectations, and decision rights must be explicit. - Committee structure that does real work
Dan notes that quarterly board meetings should not become reporting sessions. Committees handle the detailed work so full board time can be strategic. - A board matrix and intentional recruitment
If you want financial expertise, you recruit it. If you need geographic diversity or demographic representation, you recruit it. You do not “hope” it shows up. - Annual goals tied to measurable outcomes
These become performance goals for the CEO and operational goals for staff, with accountability mapped clearly.
This is the part where the truth matters: many boards fail because nobody sets expectations. Then everyone acts surprised when nothing happens.
Leadership and resilience: how to keep going
As the episode closes, Dan shares two pieces of advice he lives by:
- You do not know what you do not know. Stay curious. Avoid blind spots. Learn from people at every level.
- Take care of yourself. Mission work is hard. If you burn out, you cannot serve your organization, your family, or your community.
Stephen shares a practical example from Charity Charge: offering employees Transcendental Meditation training as a way to support mental health and inner stability.
Whether or not meditation is your thing, the principle is right. Leaders who ignore personal maintenance do not last.
Podcast Q&A Transcript
Q: What is the Sierra Club Foundation, and how does it relate to the Sierra Club?
Dan Chu:
The Sierra Club Foundation is the charitable 501(c)(3) entity that supports all of the Sierra Club’s charitable work. The Sierra Club itself is a membership organization and operates as a 501(c)(4). At a high level, the Foundation raises tax-deductible dollars and funds charitable programs, while the Club uses non-deductible dollars for lobbying, advocacy, and political engagement where permitted.
Q: Why does the Sierra Club operate with both a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4)?
Dan Chu:
Historically, the Sierra Club was a 501(c)(3). In the 1960s, the Club ran a major national campaign to stop the damming of the Grand Canyon. That effort crossed into lobbying, and the IRS ultimately revoked the Club’s c3 status. Fortunately, the Sierra Club Foundation already existed, so donors could continue making tax-deductible gifts through the Foundation.
Since then, the two entities have worked together. The Foundation funds strictly charitable work, and the Club, as a c4, can engage in unlimited lobbying and certain political activities.
Q: When was the Sierra Club founded, and what was its original vision?
Dan Chu:
The Sierra Club was founded in 1892 by John Muir and others who wanted to protect the Sierra Nevada and other wild places. The original theory of change was simple and still relevant today: take people outdoors, connect them with nature and with each other, and they will be motivated to protect those places.
Q: What are the core mission priorities of the Sierra Club Foundation today?
Dan Chu:
We focus on three existential crises facing humanity and the natural world:
- The extinction crisis. We are losing species at an unprecedented rate.
- The climate crisis. Climate instability is increasing risks to people and ecosystems every year.
- The disconnect between people and nature. When people lose a personal connection to the outdoors, they stop defending it.
All of our work flows from addressing these three challenges.
Q: Why is reconnecting people with nature such a priority?
Dan Chu:
People protect what they love. We believe that having direct experiences outdoors is foundational. When people hike, paddle, or work on trail projects together, they form emotional connections to places and to one another. That connection translates into long-term public support for conservation.
Q: How do Sierra Club outings actually work?
Dan Chu:
Outings are led by trained volunteers at the local, state, national, and international levels. They range from hikes and kayaking trips to service outings like trail maintenance or water restoration. Some outings are demographic-based, such as youth-focused or LGBTQ outings, while others are open to everyone.
These outings are not just recreational. They are a core organizing and engagement strategy.
Q: How does the Sierra Club think about public lands in a polarized political environment?
Dan Chu:
Public lands are one of the strongest areas of common ground. In my experience working in places like Wyoming, hunters and anglers are some of the most committed defenders of public lands because they see them as freedom and democracy. You do not need to be wealthy to access these places.
Shared outdoor experiences often cut across political divides in ways online discourse never will.
Q: What role do tribal nations play in land protection?
Dan Chu:
Tribal leadership has been essential. Many recent national monument designations and protections were only possible because of close collaboration with tribal governments and leaders. Tribes bring deep cultural knowledge, stewardship experience, and long-term perspective to land protection efforts.
Q: How is the current political climate affecting conservation work?
Dan Chu:
We are in a very challenging period. There are real threats to public lands, public waters, and environmental protections. In many cases, our work is about holding the line and preventing permanent losses. Once a place is lost to development or extraction, it rarely comes back.
Q: How does the Sierra Club Foundation approach fundraising at scale?
Dan Chu:
We raise funds through individual donations, foundations, bequests, charitable annuities, and multi-year grants. Some of those dollars support current programs, while others are placed into endowment or long-term assets.
That makes us not just a grantmaker, but also an asset owner.
Q: What does it mean for the Foundation to be an asset owner?
Dan Chu:
On any given day, we manage roughly $170–200 million in assets. That gives us several levers for impact beyond grants:
- Funding charitable programs at the Sierra Club
- Engaging as an active shareholder through proxy voting and resolutions
- Making catalytic, patient investments that attract follow-on capital
- Participating in systems-level investment and policy efforts
Q: Can you give an example of catalytic investing?
Dan Chu:
We provided early, below-market loans to Navajo Power to help build solar capacity on the Navajo Nation. That early capital helped unlock millions of dollars in additional investment and made the project viable at scale.
Q: Why do you emphasize “systems-level” change?
Dan Chu:
Climate change is systemic risk. You cannot solve it company by company alone. Large asset owners, like public pension funds, manage trillions of dollars and have fiduciary duties that extend decades into the future. Ignoring climate risk is a failure of fiduciary responsibility.
Q: What is your view on foundation payout rates and the 5% rule?
Dan Chu:
Foundations should absolutely question whether 5% is sufficient given the urgency of today’s challenges. But just as important is what happens with the other 95%. Every dollar has impact. If the bulk of a foundation’s assets are invested in extractive or harmful industries, that can undermine the impact of its grants.
Q: How does the Foundation think about aligning investments with mission?
Dan Chu:
We encourage foundations to examine their full portfolios and look for alignment between grantmaking and investing. Some foundations are now committing to fully mission-aligned portfolios. Others are creating strategic linkages between grants and investments to amplify impact.
Q: How large is your team at the Sierra Club Foundation?
Dan Chu:
We have a relatively small staff of about 11 people managing a large budget. Most programmatic work is carried out by the Sierra Club staff, which includes more than 700 employees nationwide. The Foundation’s role is to raise and deploy charitable capital effectively.
Q: What advice do you have for nonprofit leaders struggling with board performance?
Dan Chu:
Clarity is everything. You need clear roles, committee structures, and expectations. Boards should do most of their work in committees so full board meetings can focus on strategy, not reporting. Recruitment should be intentional, based on skills, geography, and lived experience gaps.
Q: How do you align board goals with staff performance?
Dan Chu:
The board approves annual goals and outcomes. Those goals become my performance objectives, and they flow down into staff responsibilities with clear ownership. This creates alignment across the organization and makes accountability fair and transparent.
Q: What leadership lessons have shaped your approach over time?
Dan Chu:
First, always remember you do not know what you do not know. Stay curious and listen broadly. Second, take care of yourself. This work is hard, and burnout helps no one. Personal resilience is not indulgent. It is necessary.
Q: What final advice would you give to nonprofit leaders heading into the next few years?
Dan Chu:
Focus on clarity, build real community, and protect your own capacity to lead. The challenges ahead are real, but so is the power of people working together with purpose.
