· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $11,829,628 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $22,546,411 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $10,716,783 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 27% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Grants abroad, by region — $11M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: CRUX PROJECT RESEARCH
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +150% since the first grant, against +37% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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 +172% · 42% of their budget- TITHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC7× · 2018–2024 · $14M · revenue +150% · 25% of their budget
- CCLASP7× · 2018–2024 · $13M · revenue +301%
Funded once
- CICLIMATE IMPERATIVE FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $81M · revenue +228% · 98% of their budget
- CFCenter for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologiesone grant, 2018 · $110k · revenue -45%
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INCgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +37%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…
Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
Researching policy ideas on climate and clean energy in India, engaging legislators and business leaders to discuss those ideas.
Transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.
The nonpartisan center for climate and energy solutions works to secure a safe and stable climate by accelerating the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a thriving, just, and resilient economy. for over 25 years,…
Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.
To raise awareness about the potential to reduce environmental harm by shifting electricity use to particular times; to encourage the development and spread of common protocols for this practice.
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.
The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…
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.
8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 9 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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 THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC ↗
- Who funds CLASP ↗
- Who funds REGULATORY ASSISTANCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE ENERGY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Sequoia Climate Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · The Heising-Simons Foundation · Climate Imperative Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · United States Energy Foundation · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 organization 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.
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 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Aspen Global Change Institute Inc?
Find your warmest path to Aspen Global Change Institute Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.