Loading…
· Public charity
ASPEN GLOBAL CHANGE INSTITUTE INC
Agci advances global change science and solutions by furthering interdisciplinary understanding and nurturing community to catalyze science-informed action.
$23M
Granted FY2024
4
Grants
4
Communities
$4.4M
Largest
01What you fund
0199% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2024.
Environment$112MPublic Benefit$15MOther$1.9M
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2018
—
2019
cooling
2020
—
2022
—
2023
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 4 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$3,817,499
Median grant
4
States reached
$25M
Total assets
Largest grants
- INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC$4,387,500
- COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM$3,817,499
- INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY$1,875,000
- THE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT$1,749,629
02The need
04
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
show:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 11%. 27% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
37%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$49M · 5 repeat orgs$81M to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +92% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
5
4
Total granted
$49M
$81M
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+92%
+6%
Still filing today
100%
75%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EnvironmentPublic BenefitOther
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY7× · 2018–2024 · $15M · revenue +99% · 42% of their budget- ICINTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC7× · 2018–2024 · $14M · revenue +92% · 25% of their budget
- CLCOLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM7× · 2018–2024 · $13M · revenue +301%
Funded once
- CICLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $81M · revenue +228% · 98% of their budget
- CFCENTER FOR ENERGY EFFECIENCY AND RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIESone grant, 2018 · $110k · revenue -57%
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCILone grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +6%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
1
Circum-Pacific Council for Energy
—
2
Global Energy Monitor
Global Energy Monitor develops and analyzes data on energy infrastructure, resources, and uses. We provide open access to information that is essential to building a sustainable energy future.
Environment
3
Calcef Innovations
Grow clean energy markets and accelerate adoption of clean energy technology in equitable manner.
Environment
4
The Climate Group Inc
Climate group brings together networks of international businesses and governments to shift markets toward the goal of a world of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, with greater prosperity for all.
Environment
5
The Climate Center
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
Education
6
Coalition for Green Capital
To halt climate change by accelerating investment in clean energy technologies.
Environment
7
Clean Energy Group Inc
Clean Energy Group promotes effective clean energy policies, develops low carbon technology innovation strategies and promotes new financial tools to strengthen the economy and stabilize climate change.
Environment
8
Clean Air Task Force Inc
Push the technology and policy changes needed to achieve a zero-emissions, high-energy planet at an affordable cost.
Environment
9
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
Environment
10
Technology Policy Institute
International
11
International Technology and Engineering
To advance technological and engineering capabilities for all, by nurturing professionalism, growth, and opportunities in the education community.
—
12
Clean Energy Transition Institute
To accelerate an equitable clean energy transition in the Northwest by producing unbiased research and analysis framing economic decarbonization strategies and convening stakeholders to debate the tradeoffs in building the clean energy…
Education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Climate Imperative Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
8 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Environment$112,491,222Public Benefit$15,196,000Other$1,895,309
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds CLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC ↗
- Who funds COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds THE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE ENERGY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFECIENCY AND RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
The William & Flora Hewlett FoundationCA17.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Sequoia Climate Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Climate Imperative Foundation · The Energy Foundation · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organisation ASPEN GLOBAL CHANGE INSTITUTE INC funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
medium risk
~4 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 5 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
5 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 3.3× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 845024713 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on CLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATION, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- WatchFinancial stability— Roughly 4 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 98% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Aspen Global Change Institute Inc?
Find your warmest path to Aspen Global Change Institute Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines