Skip to content
Citrus Research and Development Foundation Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Citrus Research and Development Foundation Inc

Citrus research and development foundation, inc.

$105M
Granted FY2026still arriving
7
Grants FY2026still arriving
5
States reached
$101M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Food & Nutrition$75MScience & Tech$37MEducation$545kPhilanthropy$139kHealth$41k
02FY2026 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2026

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $48k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $648k
  • $250k+2 grants · $104M
$166,969
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL$100,800,000
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA$3,367,328
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA$198,973
USDA ARS$166,969
CORNELL UNIVERSITY$162,647
TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH$119,134
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS$47,620
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 (FY17–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $511k → 15%PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: $93k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE: $200k → 11%CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $550k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS: $350k → 16%TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $236k → 22%NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $444k → 14%AGROSOURCE INC: $531k → 10%FLORIDA RESEARCH CENTER: $73k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $199k → 13%CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL: $100.8M → 19%SOUTHERN GARDENS CITRUS: $380k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: $129k → 11%TWO BLADES FOUNDATION: $151k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA: $259k → 15%CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $252k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS: $336k → 16%TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $119k → 22%AGROSOURCE INC: $354k → 10%SOUTHERN GARDENS: $422k → 11%FLORIDA RESEARCH CENTER: $66k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $176k → 13%CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL: $36.2M → 19%SOUTHERN GARDENS CITRUS: $366k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: $96k → 11%TWO BLADES FOUNDATION: $80k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS: $316k → 16%TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $108k → 22%SOUTHERN GARDENS: $224k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $118k → 13%CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL: $15.0M → 19%SOUTHERN GARDENS CITRUS: $284k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: $83k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS: $257k → 16%TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE RESEARCH: $68k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $114k → 13%CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL: $5.9M → 19%SOUTHERN GARDENS CITRUS: $141k → 21%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS: $256k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $107k → 13%CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL: $3.7M → 19%UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS: $239k → 16%TEXAS AGRI-LIFE RESEARCH: $75k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $92k → 13%CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL: $2.9M → 19%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $82k → 13%CITRUS RESEARCH & FEILD TRIAL: $236k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA: $71k → 13%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

IL
NY
OR
PA
CT
CA
MO
AZ
DC
GA
TX
FL
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$218M · 22 repeat orgs$157k to everyone else

22 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2026, 15 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
6

Total granted

$218M
$157k

Still filing today

27%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
PhilanthropyEducationScience & TechOther
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

  • CR
    CITRUS RESEARCH AND FIELD TRIAL FOUNDATION INC
    7× · 2020–2026 · $165M · revenue +545% · 85% of their budget
  • CI
    CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
    2× · 2017–2018 · $802k · revenue +14%
  • NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
    3× · 2017–2019 · $528k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • TP
    TORREY PINES INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR STUDIES INC
    one grant, 2017 · $52k
  • FP
    FLORIDA PESTIOCIDE RESEARCH
    one grant, 2017 · $33k
  • KA
    KAC AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
    one grant, 2017 · $28k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 29 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
7/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITRUS RESEARCH AND FIELD TRIAL FOUNDATION INC: $164,717,800 · PhilanthropyCITRUS RESEARCH AND FIELD TRIAL FOUNDATION INC+1 more: $138,874 · PhilanthropyUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: $34,830,641 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDAAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE (USDA): $7,952,445 · OtherAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERV…SOUTHERN GARDENS: $1,817,312 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS: $1,802,057 · Other+18 more: $4,508,578 · Other+18 moreCALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $801,806 · EducationCornell University: $479,241 · EducationTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $63,356 · EducationNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $527,596 · Science & TechTWO BLADES FOUNDATION: $246,151 · Science & Tech
Philanthropy$164,856,674Other$50,911,033Education$1,344,403Science & Tech$773,747

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 budgetCITRUS RESEARCH AND FIELD TRIAL FOUNDATION INC: $164,717,800 over 7y, 85% of budgetCALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $801,806 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: $527,596 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCornell University: $479,241 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTWO BLADES FOUNDATION: $246,151 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetFLORIDA RESEARCH CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INC: $138,874 over 2y, 56% of budgetTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY: $63,356 over 1y, 0.0% 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 CITRUS RESEARCH AND FIELD TRIAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ↗
  • Who funds Cornell University ↗
  • Who funds TWO BLADES FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FLORIDA RESEARCH CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INC ↗
  • Who funds THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Citrus Research and Development Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Citrus Research and Development Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Florida Research Center for Agricultural Sustainability Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Citrus Research and Field Trial Foundation Inc: 9% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
1rely 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.

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 29 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Citrus Research and Development’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home