Skip to content
International Institute for Environment and Development at a glance

· 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.

$5.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

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

2
’17
1
’19
3
’20
5
’21
2
’22
3
’23
3
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2024.

Environment$1.9MEducation$1.9MCrime & Legal$1.7MInternational$228kAnimals$97kFood & Nutrition$56kCivil Rights$22k
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $1,987,077, the rows itemized in this filing. The $5,472,773 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $3,485,696 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

  • $50k–250k2 grants · $125k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.9M
$856,455
Median grant
2
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY$1,005,885
NAMATI INC$856,455
HUAIROU COMMISSION WOMEN HOMES & COMMUNITY$63,978
WOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION$60,759
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%WOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION: $61k → 17%WOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION: $35k → 17%WOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION: $8k → 17%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.

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.

Sub-Saharan Africa$2.5M · 67% · 51 grants

Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES · HUMAN SETTLEMENTS · CLIMATE CHANGE

East Asia and the Pacific$551k · 15% · 19 grants

Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES · HUMAN SETTLEMENTS · CLIMATE CHANGE

South Asia$324k · 9% · 11 grants

Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES · CLIMATE CHANGE · HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$210k · 6% · 10 grants

Stated purpose: CLIMATE CHANGE · NATURAL RESOURCES · PROGRAMME WORK

Central America and the Caribbean$48k · 1% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: CLIMATE CHANGE

South America$47k · 1% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Middle East and North Africa$42k · 1% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

North America (Canada and Mexico)$5k · 0% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: NATURAL RESOURCES

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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.9M · 6 repeat orgs$115k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +65% since the first grant, against -76% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
3

Total granted

$2.9M
$51k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+65%
-76%

Still filing today

100%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $64k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
InternationalCrime & LegalHuman ServicesAnimalsOther
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

  • NI
    NAMATI INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $2.5M · revenue +65%
  • WC
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    4× · 2017–2022 · $91k · revenue +59%
  • VE
    VILLAGE ENTERPRISE FUND
    2× · 2019–2020 · $81k · revenue +378%

Funded once

  • RE
    RESOURCE EQUITY
    one grant, 2020 · $23k · revenue -76%
  • MM
    MAYORS MIGRATION COUNCIL
    one grant, 2023 · $22k
  • GP
    GUNUNG PALUNG ORANGUTAN CONSERVATION PRO
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
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
Rights and Resources Institute Inc

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…

Environment
2
Direct Action for Women Now World-Wide Inc Formerly Indias Daughters Inc
Philanthropy
3
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
4
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.

—
5
Charity Global Inc

Charity: water is a non-profit organization bringing clean and safe water to people around the world. continued on schedule o.

Human Services
6
Global Voice
—
7
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition

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…

Food & Nutrition
8
Refugees International Inc

Refugees international advocates for lifesaving assistance, human rights, and protection for displaced people and promotes solutions to displacement crisis.

International
9
Parliamentarians for Global Action

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;…

International
10
Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation

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,…

Health
11
International Council On Environmental Economics and Development Union
Human Services
12
World Relief Corp of National Association of Evangelicals

To boldly engage the world's greatest crises in partnership with the church.

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Village Enterprise Fund; 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.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 11 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $2,884,242 · EducationTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW …NAMATI INC: $2,549,352 · Crime & LegalNAMATI INCVILLAGE ENTERPRISE FUND: $81,040 · InternationalHUAIROU COMMISSION WOMEN HOMES & COMMUNITY: $63,978 · InternationalGroundswell International Inc: $55,718 · InternationalInternational Rescue Committee INC: $43,240 · InternationalWOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION INC: $103,759 · Human ServicesWildlife Conservation Society: $91,226 · AnimalsRESOURCE EQUITY: $22,793 · OtherMAYORS MIGRATION COUNCIL: $22,493 · OtherGUNUNG PALUNG ORANGUTAN CONSERVATION PRO: $5,359 · Other
Education$2,884,242Crime & Legal$2,549,352International$243,976Human Services$103,759Animals$91,226Other$50,645

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK: $2,884,242 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNAMATI INC: $2,549,352 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetWOMEN'S REFUGEE COMMISSION INC: $103,759 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $91,226 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetVILLAGE ENTERPRISE FUND: $81,040 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetHUAIROU COMMISSION WOMEN HOMES & COMMUNITY: $63,978 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetGroundswell International Inc: $55,718 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $43,240 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetRESOURCE EQUITY: $22,793 over 1y, 3.1% 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.

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.

American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE7.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 International Institute for Environment and Development funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Institute for Environment and Development. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 11 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 International Institute for Environment 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