Skip to content
Institute for America's Future Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Institute for America's Future Inc

Iaf's purpose is to conduct research and publicize findings concerning citizen's attitudes about economic options confronting america.

$100k
Granted FY2022
1
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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 2022.

Civil Rights$441kEducation$219kPublic Benefit$177kHealth$124kReligion$10kCrime & Legal$7k
02FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,260
Median grant
1
States reached
$324k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PERCEPTION INSTITUTE$100,260
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 (FY17–19, $39k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NARAL PRO CHOICE MISSOURI: $25k → 21%YOUNG WOMEN UNITED: $14k → 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

MN
NY
PA
NJ
CA
CO
MO
VA
MD
NM
DC
TX
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
Pro-Choice Washington

To protect and promote every persons right to access the full range of reproductive healthcare choices in Washington State, including safe and legal abortion, through education, advocacy, lobbying and coalition-building

—
2
Pro-Choice Arizona

Pro-Choice Arizona centers abolition and reproductive justice values to prioritize community needs. We advance reproductive equity, pregnancy and family justice, and abortion access for all folks living in Arizona through direct service…

Health
3
Planned Parenthood of Maryland Inc

The mission is to enable all marylanders to have access to a wide range of high quality, affordable reproductive health care services. by providing medical services, education, training and advocacy, ppm seeks to help individuals make…

Health
4
Guttmacher Institute Inc

The institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the united states and globally.

—
5
Pro-Choice Minnesota

To develop and sustain a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee women the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices.

—
6
Women Winning

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in minnesota.

Public Benefit
7
National Women's Law Center

To advance and protect women's legal rights. the center focuses on major policy areas of importance to women and their families including education, employment, family economic security, and health, with special attention given to the…

—
8
National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund Inc

The national institute for reproductive health action fund conducts non-partisan issue advocacy and electoral engagement to advance reproductive health, rights, and justice in states and cities across the country. nirh action fund builds…

—
9
Abortion Forward

Abortion forward is committed to developing and sustaining a constituency that uses the political process to guarantee every ohioan the right to make personal decisions regarding a full range of reproductive choices, including legal…

—
10
Aclu Foundation of Texas Inc

The ACLU Foundation of Texas is the unyielding guardian and promoter of freedom, justice, equality and dignity of all people, particularly for those who are still fighting to secure the full exercise of their civil rights and liberties.…

Civil Rights
11
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington Dc Inc

Ppmw provides high-quality, compassionate healthcare, including reproductive care; promote sexual health; and advocate for reproductive rights and health equity for all.

Health
12
American Civil Liberties Union of Texas Inc

The ACLU of Texas works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood Inc; the most unlike its peers is Avow Foundation for Abortion Access. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 27 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)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/27
Grantees still filing
17/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY: $218,913 · OtherRUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITYNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Inc: $57,500 · OtherNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland IncAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO FOUNDATION: $56,433 · OtherAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO FOUNDATI…CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICAS FUTURE: $43,988 · OtherCAMPAIGN FOR AMERICAS FUTUREPLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF PA: $25,603 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF PAPROGRESS NOW EDUCATION: $25,000 · OtherPROGRESS NOW EDUCATIONFUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK INC: $17,420 · Other+2 more: $18,194 · OtherPerception Institute Inc: $100,260 · Civil RightsPerception Institute IncPROGRESS NOW INC: $33,000 · Civil RightsPROGRESS NOW INCAvow Foundation for Abortion Access: $25,000 · Civil RightsAvow Foundation for Aborti…WOMEN'S LAW PROJECT: $17,570 · Civil RightsWOMEN'S LAW PROJECTKEYSTONE PROGRESS EDUCATION FUND: $17,570 · Civil RightsKEYSTONE PROGRESS EDUCATIO…AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA INC: $17,570 · Civil RightsAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES F…+2 more: $14,100 · Civil Rights+2 morePRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION: $47,000 · HealthPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA …Forward Together: $30,600 · HealthForward TogetherPLANNED PARENTHOOD MINNESOTA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA: $26,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD M…NATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE: $25,000 · HealthNATIONAL LATINA INST…VIRGINIA LEAGUE FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD INCORPORATED: $20,000 · HealthVIRGINIA LEAGUE FOR …ACCESSMATTERS: $17,570 · HealthACCESSMATTERSROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $10,300 · HealthROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANN…Abortion Action Missouri Foundation: $25,000 · Human ServicesBOLD FUTURES NM: $13,634 · Human ServicesGENDER JUSTICE: $25,000 · Crime & LegalTHE CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR CIVIC PARTICIPATION: $25,000 · Public BenefitNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $25,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$463,051Civil Rights$225,070Health$176,470Human Services$38,634Crime & Legal$25,000Public Benefit$25,000Arts & Culture$25,000

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 budgetPerception Institute Inc: $100,260 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Inc: $57,500 over 1y, 34% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW MEXICO FOUNDATION: $56,433 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetPRO-CHOICE VIRGINIA FOUNDATION: $47,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetCAMPAIGN FOR AMERICAS FUTURE: $43,988 over 1y, 60% of budgetPROGRESS NOW INC: $33,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetForward Together: $30,600 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD MINNESOTA NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA: $26,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF PA: $25,603 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetGENDER JUSTICE: $25,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetTHE CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR CIVIC PARTICIPATION: $25,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri Foundation: $25,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetNARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 9.9% of budgetPROGRESS NOW EDUCATION: $25,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetAvow Foundation for Abortion Access: $25,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetNATIONAL LATINA INSTITUTE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetVIRGINIA LEAGUE FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD INCORPORATED: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetACCESSMATTERS: $17,570 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK INC: $17,420 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOLD FUTURES NM: $13,634 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD INC: $10,300 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.

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.

The Susan Thompson Bu…Hopewell FundNational Institute fo…NEO Philanthropy IncRockefeller Philanthr…New Venture FundAmalgamated Charitabl…Tides FoundationPlanned Parenthood Fe…Groundswell FundMs Foundation for Wom…Wellspring Philanthro…
The Susan Thompson Buffett FoundationNE36.5× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation · Hopewell Fund · National Institute for Reproductive Health Inc · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · New Venture Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc · Groundswell Fund · Ms Foundation for Women Inc · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc

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 Institute for America's Future Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Institute for America's Future Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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
    ⤢ 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 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 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 Institute for America's Future’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