· Public charity
Ceres Inc
Ceres is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more just, and resilient world.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $540,485 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $8,983,926 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $8,443,441 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.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $153k
- $250k+1 grant · $367k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CDP NORTH AMERICA INC | $367,275 |
| FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION | $98,626 |
| MERIDIAN INSTITUTE | $54,584 |
| CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC | $20,000 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 86% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $8.4M on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: TO FORGE A CONSENSUS AMONG THE NGO INVESTOR NETWORKS ON INVESTOR INDICATORS THAT WILL SUPPORT INVESTOR NET ZERO EMISSIONS BY 2050 IN THE GLOBAL STEEL INDUSTRY. · IN SUPPORT OF CLIMATE ACTION 100+: INVESTORS ENGAGING WITH CORPORATIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. · TO SUPPORT ENGAGEMENT GROUPS FOR 20 EUROPEAN, CANADIAN AND ASIAN BANKS ON THE PARIS AGREEMENT GOALS TO HELP INVESTORS UNDERSTAND AND MANAGE CLIMATE-RELATED FINANCIAL RISKS.
Stated purpose: IN SUPPORT OF CLIMATE ACTION 100+: INVESTORS ENGAGING WITH CORPORATIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. · TO SUPPORT INVESTOR NET ZERO COMMITMENTS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND TO SUPPORT INVESTORS WORLDWIDE WHO ADVOCATE FOR THE POLICIES NEEDED TO ENABLE THE NET ZERO TRANSITION.
Stated purpose: TO RESEARCH CORPORATE PRACTICES AND BENCHMARK PROGRESS IN RELATION TO COMPANY DEFORESTATION COMMITMENTS AND GENERATE CONTENT FOR INVESTORS AND COMPANIES REGARDING NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 12% of Ceres Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 11% of the giving stays in MA; read by stated purpose it is 3% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
11 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 7 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
- CNCDP NORTH AMERICA INC2× · 2023–2024 · $602k · revenue +42%
- MIMeridian Institute4× · 2021–2024 · $355k · revenue +78%
- CACLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC5× · 2020–2024 · $200k · revenue +156%
Funded once
- RSR STREET INSTITUTEgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue +37%
- BFBUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $66k · revenue +70%
- AMATLANTIC MEDIA INCone grant, 2018 · $60k
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 catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
Cgc operates as a nonprofit financial institution that invests directly and through partners to transform financial markets by using public and private investing to accelerate the deployment of projects that strengthen the grid, reduce…
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
To develop and promote a carbon dividends framework - based on carbon fees whose revenues are rebated to citizens through dividends - as the most cost-effective, equitable, and politically viable climate solution.
Terraset uses philanthropic capital to purchase permanent, high-quality carbon removal. we pool donations from individuals, foundations, family offices, and donor advised funds, and make strategic purchases of high-quality carbon removal…
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,…
To launch breakthrough climate mitigation efforts by identifying, supporting, and unleashing innovative leaders with transformative strategies.
See schedule o part i for description of the organizations mission.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cdp North America Inc and the most unlike its peers is Forest Trends Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 15 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 FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds CDP NORTH AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Meridian Institute ↗
- Who funds CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds B TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds R STREET INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ↗
- Who funds THE CLIMATE GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION FOR THE GLOBAL COMPACT ↗
- Who funds SOLIDARIDAD NORTH AMERICA ↗
- Who funds SOCIETY FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
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: New Venture Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Ceres 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.