· Public charity
International Institute for Environment and Development
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (iied)'s mission is to build a fairer, more sustainable world, using evidence, action and influence in partnership with others.
Read this first · the figures below need context
51% of International Institute for Environment and Development’s FY2024 grant dollars went to The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
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 $1,987,077 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $5,472,773 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $3,485,696 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
- $50k–250k2 grants · $125k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.9M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | $1,005,885 |
| NAMATI INC | $856,455 |
| HUAIROU COMMISSION WOMEN HOMES & COMMUNITY | $63,978 |
| WOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION | $60,759 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–24, $104k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those 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.
Grants abroad, by region — $3.8M 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.
Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES · HUMAN SETTLEMENTS · CLIMATE CHANGE
Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES · HUMAN SETTLEMENTS · CLIMATE CHANGE
Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES · CLIMATE CHANGE · HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Stated purpose: CLIMATE CHANGE · NATURAL RESOURCES · PROGRAMME WORK
Stated purpose: CLIMATE CHANGE
Stated purpose: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Stated purpose: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +65% since the first grant, against -76% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $64k 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
- NINAMATI INC4× · 2021–2024 · $2.5M · revenue +65%
- WCWildlife Conservation Society4× · 2017–2022 · $91k · revenue +59%
- VEVILLAGE ENTERPRISE FUND2× · 2019–2020 · $81k · revenue +378%
Funded once
- RERESOURCE EQUITYone grant, 2020 · $23k · revenue -76%
- MMMAYORS MIGRATION COUNCILone grant, 2023 · $22k
- GPGUNUNG PALUNG ORANGUTAN CONSERVATION PROone grant, 2022 · $5k
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.
Rri's mission is to support local communities and indigenous peoples' struggles against poverty and marginalization by promoting greater global commitment and action towards policy, market, and legal reforms that secure their rights to…
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.
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.
Charity: water is a non-profit organization bringing clean and safe water to people around the world. continued on schedule o.
The mission of the global alliance for improved nutrition (gain) is to improve the consumption of healthier diets for all, especially the most vulnerable, by improving the availability, affordability, desirability, and sustainability of…
Refugees international advocates for lifesaving assistance, human rights, and protection for displaced people and promotes solutions to displacement crisis.
Parliamentarians for global action (pga) is a non-partisan ngo network of legislators from all regions of the world acting in their individual capacity to advocate for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law; peace and human security;…
Partners In Health (PIH) is a non-profit, global health organization that fights social injustice by bringing the benefits of modern medical science first and foremost to the most vulnerable communities worldwide. In Haiti, Malawi, Rwanda,…
To boldly engage the world's greatest crises in partnership with the church.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Village Enterprise Fund and the most unlike its peers is Wildlife Conservation Society. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 11 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 THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds NAMATI INC ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION INC ↗
- Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds VILLAGE ENTERPRISE FUND ↗
- Who funds HUAIROU COMMISSION WOMEN HOMES & COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds Groundswell International Inc ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds RESOURCE EQUITY ↗
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: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 International Institute for Environment and Development 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.