Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

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.

$53M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$203k
Largest
01What you fund
0195% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

Environment$6.5MFood & Nutrition$216kScience & Tech$187kHuman Services$110kEducation$110kCivil Rights$24kArts & Culture$10kHousing & Shelter$6kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 5 grants below total $498,287 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $52,693,414 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $52,195,127 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

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $44k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $446k
$51,750
Median grant
5
States reached
$78M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WORLD RESOURCE INSTITUTE$202,657
ECOAGRICULTURE INTERNATIONAL$191,720
TECHNOLOGY MATTERS$51,750
MERIDIAN INSTITUTE$43,622
Individual grant recipient$8,538
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY21–22, $220k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%BENEFICIENT TECHNOLOGY INC: $110k → 8%BENEFICIENT TECHNOLOGY INC: $110k → 8%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

NY
MA
CT
CA
CO
VA
DE
DC

Grants abroad, by region — $52M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 7 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$39M · 74% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: Management Support · Human Rights · SUPPORT

Sub-Saharan Africa$5.4M · 10% · 70 grants

Stated purpose: Forestry Activities · Africa Cocoa Fund · Management Support

Central America and the Caribbean$4.8M · 9% · 13 grants

Stated purpose: Sustainable Agricultural Practices · Forestry Activities · Human Rights

South America$2.2M · 4% · 8 grants

Stated purpose: Management Support · Forestry Activities · Sustainable Agricultural Practices

North America (Canada and Mexico)$619k · 1% · 28 grants

Stated purpose: Management Support · Forestry Activities · Sustainable Agricultural Practices

South Asia$320k · 1% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: Human Rights · Sustainable Agricultural Practices · Management Support

East Asia and the Pacific$227k · 0% · 8 grants

Stated purpose: Sustainable Agricultural Practices · Forestry Activities · Human Rights

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$6.9M · 10 repeat orgs$270k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
5

Total granted

$6.9M
$67k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+136%

Still filing today

90%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 59% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $203k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentPhilanthropyCivil RightsArts & CultureHuman ServicesInternationalOther

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

  • EI
    ECOAGRICULTURE INTERNATIONAL INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +256% · 35% of their budget
  • CN
    CDP NORTH AMERICA INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $1.5M · revenue +8%
  • MI
    Meridian Institute
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +191%

Funded once

  • SA
    SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $24k · revenue +136%
  • RA
    RIGHTS AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC
    one grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +7%
  • ME
    MIGHTY EARTH INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $13k · revenue +243%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
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.

2
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

Environment
3
Rocky Mountain Institute

Transform the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all.

4
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
5
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
6
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
7
Global Impact Investing Network Inc

The global impact investing network, inc. is dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing to solve systemic problems facing people and the planet. impact investments are investments made into companies,…

Philanthropy
8
Center for International Environmental Law Inc

To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…

International
9
Climate Institute

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…

Environment
10
Watttime Corporation

To raise awareness about the potential to reduce environmental harm by shifting electricity use to particular times; to encourage the development and spread of common protocols for this practice.

Science & Tech
11
Climate Central Inc

Climate central, inc. (the organization") is an independent not-for-profit organization of leading scientists, technology experts and communication professionals that are dedicated to researching and reporting on climate change and its…

Science & Tech
12
Natural Resource Governance Institute

Nrgi envisions a world where natural resources enable fair, prosperous and sustainable societies, instead of undermining them. nrgi exists because decisions about how natural resources are governed determine the well-being of people in…

International

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is World Resources Institute and the most unlike its peers is Verra. 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

14 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 17 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
10/14
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

ECOAGRICULTURE INTERNATIONAL INC — $1,559,918 · EnvironmentECOAGRICULTURE INTERNATIONAL INCCDP NORTH AMERICA INC — $1,532,008 · EnvironmentCDP NORTH AMERICA INCCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION — $1,109,295 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATIONVerra — $872,793 · EnvironmentVerra+3 more — $88,204 · EnvironmentMeridian Institute — $1,239,786 · PhilanthropyMeridian InstituteBENEFICENT TECHNOLOGY INC — $220,429 · Human ServicesWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE — $202,657 · InternationalTECHNOLOGY MATTERS — $187,442 · Science & TechIndividual grant recipient — $97,272 · OtherNORWAY'S INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE & FOREST INITIATIVE — $9,300 · OtherSWEDISH POSTCODE FOUNDATION — $6,000 · OtherSOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL INC — $23,627 · OtherVERITE INC — $20,948 · OtherYale University — $50,000 · Education
Environment$5,162,218Philanthropy$1,239,786Human Services$220,429International$202,657Science & Tech$187,442Other$157,147Education$50,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetECOAGRICULTURE INTERNATIONAL INC — $1,559,918 over 5y, 35% of budgetCDP NORTH AMERICA INC — $1,532,008 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetMeridian Institute — $1,239,786 over 8y, 2.7% of budgetCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION — $1,109,295 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetVerra — $872,793 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetBENEFICENT TECHNOLOGY INC — $220,429 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE — $202,657 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTECHNOLOGY MATTERS — $187,442 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetFOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION — $60,004 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetYale University — $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL INC — $23,627 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetVERITE INC — $20,948 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMIGHTY EARTH INC — $13,200 over 1y, 0.6% of budget
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.

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.

The Skoll FoundationCA15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Skoll Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Tides Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Rainforest Alliance Inc 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 19%
  • Verite Inc19% of income from government
  • Yale University12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY2025

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 17 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph