· Private foundation
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k7 grants · $31k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $58k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $950k
- $250k+1 grant · $254k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LINDEN CLIMATE FUND INC | $253,691 |
| WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE | $230,000 |
| WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE | $220,000 |
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION | $200,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL | $150,000 |
| BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER | $100,000 |
| CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS | $50,000 |
| RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE | $25,000 |
| BROOKLYN PUBLIC LIBRARY | $22,500 |
| SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COALITION INSTITUTE | $10,000 |
| CAMPAIGN AGAINST HUNGER | $7,500 |
| HEALTH EQUITY INITIATIVE | $5,000 |
| PEOPLES THEATRE PROJECT INC | $5,000 |
| MALIASILI INITIATIVES INC | $5,000 |
| AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF ROME | $3,333 |
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 (FY25–25, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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 +59% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
22 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $58k 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
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE7× · 2019–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +68%
BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC7× · 2019–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +67%- CFCENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL6× · 2019–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +162%
Funded once
- RGRHODIUM GROUP LLCone grant, 2021 · $400k
- ELEnvironmental Law Instituteone grant, 2019 · $125k · revenue +22%
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCEone grant, 2019 · $100k · revenue +11%
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.
The climate institute is organized for the purpose of educating the general public and policy makers as to the gravity of potential climate change, exploring the policy implications of the latest scientific findings on climate modelling…
To research and develop centrist policy ideas.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…
Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.
Transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.
The national caucus of environmental legislators empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
Researching policy ideas on climate and clean energy in India, engaging legislators and business leaders to discuss those ideas.
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is Linden Climate Fund Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 26 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 47% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
42 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. 42 of the 52 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 LINDEN CLIMATE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ALLIANCE FOR MARKET SOLUTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Resources for the Future Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL ↗
- Who funds GREAT PLAINS INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
- Who funds WORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds American Forests ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS ↗
- Who funds CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds THE NISKANEN CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ↗
- Who funds CLIMATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds Wildlife Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Environmental Law Institute ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE ↗
- Who funds DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FLOOD COALITION INC ↗
- Who funds CarbonPlan ↗
- Who funds STUDENTS FOR CARBON DIVIDENDS INC ↗
- Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds MALIASILI INITIATIVES INC ↗
- Who funds COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS SECRETARIAT ↗
- Who funds BROOKLYN PUBLIC LIBRARY ↗
- Who funds THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ↗
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: Climateworks Foundation · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · Breakthrough Energy Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · New Venture Fund · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The Energy Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Ford Foundation · The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund · Climate Imperative 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 Advocates for Climate Innovation 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Advocates for Climate Innovation?
Find your warmest path to Advocates for Climate Innovation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.