Skip to content

· Public charity

Center for Public Interest Research Inc

The mission of the center for public interest research is to engage in public research and education and to assist other organizations engaged in similar activities.

$50k
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$35k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Public Benefit$550kCivil Rights$200kHuman Services$150kRecreation & Sports$140kEnvironment$42kPhilanthropy$15k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$35,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ASPEN VALLEY SKI & SNOWBOARD CLUB INC$35,000
ENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH & POLICY CENTER INC$15,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $150k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%PARENTS TOGETHER FOUNDATION: $150k → 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
Potential Energy Coalition Inc

Potential Energy Coalition, Inc. (the "Organization") was founded in 2018 to educate the public and help create broad public demand for clean energy and climate solutions through evidence-based communications. The Organization uses…

—
2
Progressive Change Institute

The progressive change institute develops and promotes public policy, fosters bottom-up democracy, and educates the public. this includes working to impact the mainstream political discourse and protect democracy.

Public Benefit
3
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future

The mission of pennfuture is to lead the transition to a clean energy economy in pennsylvania and beyond. pennfuture is protecting our air, water and land, and empowering citizens to build sustainable communities for future generations.

Environment
4
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Competitive enterprise institute (cei) is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. we believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being…

—
5
Partnership for Policy Integrity

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

Environment
6
ParentsTogether Action

ParentsTogether Action creates media families love, helps parents engage in our democracy, and brings parents together to build a world where all families can thrive.

Public Benefit
7
Nextgen Climate Action

Nextgen america empowers young people to engage in the democratic process through voter registration and civic engagement on issues of public policy. this is achieved through innovative digital outreach, communications, and grassroots…

Unclassified
8
Environment Next Inc

Environment next supports individuals, nonprofits and businesses around the world on solutions to complex climate issues. we provide leadership, outreach and communication support, grants, and investments to empower leaders and their ideas…

Environment
9
Public Agenda Inc

Public agenda strengthens american democracy by connecting research to action enabling people and institutions to pursue changes that make a difference. we amplify the voices of americans and help communities discover and build on common…

—
10
Pennenvironment Research & Policy Center Inc

Protecting our air, water and open spaces. we investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers and help the public make their voices heard in local, state, and national debates over the quality of our…

Environment
11
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
12
Environment America Inc

The corporation is organized for the purpose of conducting public interest research, policy development, analysis, education, litigation, and advocacy to protect the environment and people of the united states of america, including, but…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Accelerate Change Inc; the most unlike its peers is Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. 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

9 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.

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

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PROGRESS NOW EDUCATION: $300,000 · OtherPROGRESS NOW EDUCATIONPIRG NEW VOTERS PROJECT INC: $125,000 · OtherPIRG NEW VOTERS PROJECT INCACCELERATE CHANGE INC: $200,000 · Civil RightsACCELERATE CHANGE INCROCK THE VOTE: $125,000 · Civil RightsROCK THE VOTEParentsTogether Foundation: $150,000 · Human ServicesParentsTogether…ASPEN VALLEY SKISNOWBOARD CLUB INC: $140,000 · Recreation & SportsASPEN VALLEY S…ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION RESEARCH CENTER INC: $26,664 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC: $15,000 · EnvironmentBILL HILLARY & CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Health
Other$425,000Civil Rights$325,000Human Services$150,000Recreation & Sports$140,000Environment$41,664Health$15,000

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 budgetPROGRESS NOW EDUCATION: $300,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetParentsTogether Foundation: $150,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetASPEN VALLEY SKISNOWBOARD CLUB INC: $140,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetROCK THE VOTE: $125,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetENVIRONMENT AMERICA RESEARCH AND POLICY CENTER INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBILL HILLARY & CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Tides FoundationCA14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · New Venture Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Public Interest Research Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Center for Public Interest Research Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    2get 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 · 0–5%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Center for Public Interest Research Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Center for Public Interest Research 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.

    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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Center for Public Interest Research’s filings →

    More from the funding graph