Skip to content

· Public charity

Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo

Science and innovation for a food and nutrition secure world.cimmyt is a global thought leader and change agent for climate resilient, sustainable, and inclusive agricultural development for a food and nutrition secure future.(see schedule o)cimmyt contributes to the development of a world with healthier and more prosperous people free…

$67M
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
14
States reached
$6.8M
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 2024.

International$9.9MScience & Tech$9.1MFood & Nutrition$8.4MEducation$4.7MYouth Development$398kCommunity Improvement$273kEnvironment$234kHealth$38kOther$0
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $12,284,843, the rows itemized in this filing. The $67,151,805 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $54,866,962 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $61k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+6 grants · $11M
$194,425
Median grant
14
States reached
$259M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MERCY CORPS$6,791,080
ADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF AGENCY INTERNATIONAL$1,337,397
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE$1,187,870
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY$1,036,550
CORNELL UNIVERSITY$423,788
PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL INC$322,459
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS$236,921
GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION$194,425
PURDUE UNIVERSITY$164,354
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA$138,776
NEW MARKETS LAB$118,052
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE$117,616
MYAGRO FARMS$100,000
USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE$54,904
STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE US$30,651
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 (FY23–24, $220k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%NEW MARKETS LAB: $118k → 14%NEW MARKETS LAB: $102k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

AK
ME
NH
WA
ND
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
WY
IA
IN
OH
CA
CO
VA
MD
NM
TN
NC
DC
OK
AL
GA
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $55M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 8 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Sub-Saharan Africa$30M · 55% · 97 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

South America$8.1M · 15% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$5.0M · 9% · 19 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

East Asia and the Pacific$4.8M · 9% · 8 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

South Asia$4.8M · 9% · 61 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

North America (Canada and Mexico)$974k · 2% · 36 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

Central America and the Caribbean$427k · 1% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

Middle East and North Africa$415k · 1% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: RESEARCH

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. 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$28M · 21 repeat orgs$5.1M to everyone else

21 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
20

Total granted

$28M
$3.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-13%
+6%

Still filing today

38%
65%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.5M went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationInternationalScience & TechHuman ServicesFood & NutritionYouth DevelopmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • Cornell University
    7× · 2018–2024 · $6.2M · revenue +49%
  • IF
    INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPMENT CENTER
    5× · 2018–2022 · $1.0M · revenue +30%
  • GT
    GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $962k · revenue +47%

Funded once

  • CA
    CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2019 · $2.5M · revenue +6%
  • QE
    QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING DESIGN
    one grant, 2019 · $159k
  • PD
    PRECISION DEVELOPMENT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $130k · revenue +121%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its 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
International Crops Research Institute

To reduce poverty, hunger, malnutrition and environmental degradation in the dryland tropics

International
2
Agriculture & Food Systems Institute

The agriculture & food systems institute (afsi) is a non-profit organization that advances and disseminates science for public benefit. our mission is to achieve safe and sustainable agri-food systems by providing thought leadership and…

Science & Tech
3
Institute of Food Technologists

As an organization, the institute of food technologists is focusing its work in four main areas, or "roles and goals." each is wide-reaching and helps to advance our mission.steward for the profession and its community - provide learning,…

—
4
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Appl Inc

Food, feed, fiber, and fuel for the world's 800 million people who suffer from hunger and poverty - this is the formidable task for many countries, development agencies, and other interest groups. of the many strategies that have been…

—
5
Rainforest Alliance Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

—
6
AKADEMIYA2063

AKADEMIYA2063's overall mission is to create, across Africa, state-of-the-art technical capacities to support African Union Member States to achieve the key goals of Agenda 2063 of transforming national economies to boost growth and…

International
7
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
8
William Marsh Rice University

As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…

Education
9
Agricultural Research Foundation

Our mission is to encourage facilitate support and engage in scientific investigation and research experimentation and to advance educational and training activities related to agriculture and natural resources throughout the state of…

—
10
International Life Sciences Institute

Ilsi is a global, nonprofit federation dedicated to generating and advancing emerging science and groundbreaking research to ensure foods are safe, nutritious and sustainable, and that they improve planetary and human health and well-being…

Science & Tech
11
Rainforest Alliance Holding Inc

RA works at the intersection of business, agriculture & forests to improve lives & protect nature by transforming how land is used, production of goods & consumer choices.

Environment
12
Centro Internacional De Agricultura Tropical

To reduce hunger and poverty, and improve human nutrition in the tropics through research aimed at increasing the eco-efficiency of agriculture

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is International Food Policy Research Institute; the most unlike its peers is Corteva Agriscience 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

27 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 27 of the 46 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/27
Grantees still filing
14/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY: $3,125,049 · OtherCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITYCORTEVA AGRISCIENCE FOUNDATION: $2,470,667 · OtherCORTEVA AGRISCIENCE FOUNDATIONPIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL IN: $1,910,479 · OtherPIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL INTRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY: $857,800 · OtherTRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITYTEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $831,453 · OtherTEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCHUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $523,166 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA- DAVIS: $454,278 · Other+17 more: $2,015,811 · Other+17 moreMercy Corps: $7,343,860 · InternationalMercy CorpsADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT & RELIEF AGENCY INTERNATIONAL: $1,337,397 · InternationalADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT & RELIEF AG…INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $1,013,696 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPM…+3 more: $183,358 · InternationalCornell University: $6,150,450 · EducationCornell University+8 more: $507,708 · Education+8 moreINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $2,853,635 · Food & NutritionINTERNATI…GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $961,922 · HealthSTOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE US INC: $153,350 · Science & TechAssociation for the Advancement of Industrial Crops: $60,860 · Science & TechAFRICA SOIL INFORMATION SERVICE: $57,960 · Science & TechResearch Triangle Institute: $40,000 · Science & TechGlobal Seafood Alliance Inc: $273,050 · Community Improvement
Other$12,188,703International$9,878,311Education$6,658,158Food & Nutrition$2,853,635Health$961,922Science & Tech$312,170Community Improvement$273,050

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMercy Corps: $7,343,860 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetCornell University: $6,150,450 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $2,853,635 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT & RELIEF AGENCY INTERNATIONAL: $1,337,397 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetINTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $1,013,696 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetGEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION: $961,922 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetGlobal Seafood Alliance Inc: $273,050 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetNEW MARKETS LAB: $219,642 over 2y, 20% of budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $185,936 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSTOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE US INC: $153,350 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetPRECISION DEVELOPMENT INC: $129,845 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $117,616 over 1y, 11% of budgetMYAGRO FARMS: $64,845 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetThe Research Foundation for The State University of New York: $52,581 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetResearch Triangle Institute: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS: $37,735 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetOklahoma State University Foundation: $35,691 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOregon State University Foundation: $33,934 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOAK RIDGE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORP dba OAK RIDGE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL: $33,333 over 2y, 28% of budgetMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $31,800 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEcoVentures International: $27,430 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $20,150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLAND O'LAKES VENTURE37: $15,778 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.

  • Who funds Mercy Corps ↗
  • Who funds Cornell University ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT & RELIEF AGENCY INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER DEVELOPMENT CENTER ↗
  • Who funds GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds Global Seafood Alliance Inc ↗
  • Who funds NEW MARKETS LAB ↗
  • Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
  • Who funds STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE US INC ↗
  • Who funds PRECISION DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds MYAGRO FARMS ↗
  • Who funds Association for the Advancement of Industrial Crops ↗
  • Who funds AFRICA SOIL INFORMATION SERVICE ↗
  • Who funds The Research Foundation for The State University of New York ↗
  • Who funds Research Triangle Institute ↗
  • Who funds ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTERS ↗
  • Who funds Oklahoma State University Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Oregon State University Foundation ↗
  • Who funds OAK RIDGE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CORP dba OAK RIDGE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL ↗

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.

Gates FoundationWA14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Gates Foundation · Cornell University · 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 Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 35%
  • Mercy Corps: 47% of income from government
  • Adventist Development & Relief Agency International: 35% of income from government
  • President and Fellows of Harvard College: 7% of income from government
  • Oregon State University Foundation: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo?

Find your warmest path to Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo 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 46 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 Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo’s filings →

More from the funding graph