Skip to content
Mercury Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mercury Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$28M
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$15M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

54% of Mercury Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 4 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Organizations named directly on the return

1
’18
3
’19
12
’20
12
’21
3
’22
4
’23
9
’24
4
’25

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, FY2018 to 2025.

Philanthropy$97MHealth$29MCivil Rights$8.3MAnimals$8.1MEnvironment$6.8MCrime & Legal$1.0MHousing & Shelter$1.0MScience & Tech$500kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,000,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$249M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS$15,000,000
VANGUARD CHARITABLE FUND - DAF$3,000,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA$3,000,000
PANTHERA$3,000,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES$2,000,000
NRDC$2,000,000
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 (FY20–21, $2.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER: $500k → 10%DOWNTOWN WOMENS CENTER: $500k → 14%IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER: $500k → 10%DOWNTOWN WOMENS CENTER: $500k → 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

WA
NY
MA
RI
CA
VA
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$53M · 11 repeat orgs$12M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +64% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
11

Total granted

$53M
$9.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+64%
0%

Still filing today

91%
73%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.0M went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentHealthCivil RightsHuman ServicesInternationalOther
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

  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $18M · revenue +43%
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES
    7× · 2019–2025 · $11M · revenue +71%
  • PC
    PANTHERA CORPORATION
    7× · 2019–2025 · $7.5M · revenue +64%

Funded once

  • VC
    Vanguard Charitable-Donor Advised Fund
    one grant, 2018 · $7.2M
  • TI
    TREEPEOPLE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $700k · revenue +150%
  • THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC
    one grant, 2024 · $500k · revenue 0%
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
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation

To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.

Animals
2
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
3
Project Drawdown

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;…

Education
4
The Population Council Inc

We generate ideas, produce evidence, and design solutions to improve the lives of underserved populations around the world. we take a multidisciplinary, intergenerational, life-cycle approach that contributes to (see schedule o)four global…

International
5
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
6
Center for Biological Diversity Inc

The center for biological diversity inc, works to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. we do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and…

Animals
7
Property and Environment Research Center

Perc is dedicated to advancing conservation through markets, incentives, property rights, and partnerships.

Public Benefit
8
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
9
Ocean Conservancy

Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.

Environment
10
Friends of the Earth

Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…

Environment
11
Animal Wellness Action

To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.

Human Services
12
World Animal Protection

World animal protection is a global organization working to end factory farming and wildlife exploitation. we expose cruel systems, promote animal-friendly alternatives, and influence policy change. for over 75 years, we've been rewriting…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Downtown Women's Center. 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

19 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. 19 of the 24 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
12/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $87,000,000 · PhilanthropyROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INCPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $18,000,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD FE…PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $10,750,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD LO…Vanguard Charitable-Donor Advised Fund: $7,200,000 · OtherVANGUARD CHARITABLE FUND - DAF: $3,000,000 · OtherYOUTH EMERGING STRONGER: $400,000 · OtherTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $500,000 · Other+7 more: $600,000 · OtherTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $5,500,000 · Civil RightsNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC: $2,750,000 · Civil RightsPANTHERA CORPORATION: $7,500,000 · AnimalsSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $550,000 · Animals+1 more: $10,000 · AnimalsNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,500,000 · EnvironmentTREEPEOPLE INC: $700,000 · EnvironmentWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $400,000 · EnvironmentIMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER: $1,000,000 · Human ServicesDOWNTOWN WOMEN'S CENTER: $1,000,000 · Human Services
Philanthropy$87,000,000Health$28,750,000Other$11,700,000Civil Rights$8,250,000Animals$8,060,000Environment$6,600,000Human Services$2,000,000

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 budgetROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $87,000,000 over 7y, 2.4% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $18,000,000 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $10,750,000 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetPANTHERA CORPORATION: $7,500,000 over 7y, 4.1% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS INC: $5,500,000 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetNATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC: $5,500,000 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetNAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC FUND INC: $2,750,000 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetIMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER: $1,000,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetDOWNTOWN WOMEN'S CENTER: $1,000,000 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetTREEPEOPLE INC: $700,000 over 1y, 9.7% of budgetSEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $550,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetTHE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INC: $500,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetWORLD WILDLIFE FUND INC: $400,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFOOD FINDERS INC: $250,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSEA SHEPHERD LEGAL: $150,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetFFLV USA: $15,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetKITTEN RESCUE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetLOS ANGELES LGBT CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWESTRIDGE SCHOOL FOR GIRLS INC: $5,000 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Mercury Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mercury Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Mercury Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Mercury Foundation 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.

    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 24 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mercury’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