Skip to content

· Public charity

Center for International Policy Inc

The center for international policy is a woman-led, progressive, independent nonprofit center for research, education, and advocacy working to advance a more peaceful, just, and sustainable u.s.

$246k
Granted FY2022
2
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$131k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2022.

Environment$2.8MInternational$250kCommunity Improvement$115k
02FY2022 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$130,903
Median grant
1
States reached
$853k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MIGHTY EARTH$130,903
QUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT$114,897
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%EARTH INNOVATION INSTITUTE: $50k → 10%THE RAINFOREST FOUNDATION: $30k → 20%WIN WITHOUT WAR: $248k → 14%WAXMAN STRATEGIES: $780k → 14%WAXMAN STRATEGIES: $701k → 14%WAXMAN STRATEGIES: $364k → 14%FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $310k → 14%FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $221k → 14%FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $199k → 14%MIGHTY EARTH: $131k → 14%FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $15k → 14%ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATIONFORUM ON ARMS TRADE: $2k → 14%QUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: $115k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Center for Strategic and International Studies

The center for strategic and international studies (csis) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world's greatest challenges.

International
2
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
3
Center for a New American Security Inc

The mission of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is to develop strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies building on the the expertise and experience of its staff and advisors. CNAS engages policy…

International
4
The Breakthrough Institute

The Breakthrough Institute is a research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges.

Environment
5
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.": - count it: our work is…

International
6
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
7
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
8
Global Policy Forum Inc

Research and education of United Nations activities

International
9
The Fund for Peace Inc

Building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. a leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, the fund for peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing…

International
10
Rocky Mountain Institute

Transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.

—
11
The International Institute for Strategic Studies - Us

To provide accurate, objective information and analysis on international strategic issues for legislators, diplomats, foreign affairs analysts, international business leaders, economists, the military, defense commentators, journalists,…

International
12
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Earth Innovation Institute; the most unlike its peers is The Arms Control Associations. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WAXMAN STRATEGIES: $1,845,140 · OtherWAXMAN STRATEGIESFOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $745,290 · EnvironmentFOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATIONMIGHTY EARTH INC: $130,903 · EnvironmentMIGHTY EARTH INC+1 more: $30,000 · EnvironmentWin Without War Education Fund: $247,925 · International+1 more: $2,000 · InternationalQUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: $114,897 · Community ImprovementEarth Innovation Institute: $50,457 · PhilanthropyTHE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTARY INC: $20,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$1,845,140Environment$906,193International$249,925Community Improvement$114,897Philanthropy$50,457Arts & Culture$20,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $745,290 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetWin Without War Education Fund: $247,925 over 1y, 27% of budgetMIGHTY EARTH INC: $130,903 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetQUINCY INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT: $114,897 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetEarth Innovation Institute: $50,457 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetRAINFOREST FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTARY INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund IncNY13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Center for International Policy Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center for International Policy Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 6%
  • The Center for Independent Documentary Inc: 6% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Center for International Policy’s filings →

More from the funding graph