Skip to content
Rainforest Alliance Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $498,287, the rows itemized in this filing. The $52,693,414 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $52,195,127 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

  • 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

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 (FY21–22, $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 its 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
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

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

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.
$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
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

  • 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%
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
Institute for State Effectiveness

The institute for state effectiveness seeks to close the governance gap and advance inclusive growth so that states and markets deliver to citizens. ise advances practical approaches to strengthen capacity for transformation, through…

International
2
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.

—
3
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
4
Ceres Inc

Ceres is a nonprofit advocacy organization working to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more just, and resilient world. through education and research, we make the business case for action on the most pressing sustainability…

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
Rocky Mountain Institute

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

—
7
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
8
Center for International Private Enterprise Inc

The center for international private enterprise (cipe) is a non-profit global organization that works to strengthen democracy and build competitive, resilient markets in many of the world's most challenging environments. working alongside…

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
Green Business Certification Inc

To independently recognize excellence in performance and practice globally while promoting adoption of building and business practices that continually and measurably improve health, equity, resilience, and environmental wellbeing for all.

Community Improvement
11
Climate Catalyst Inc

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

Environment
12
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ecoagriculture International Inc; 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 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. 14 of the 17 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.

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

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 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 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
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.

The Skoll FoundationGordon E and Betty I …The David and Lucile …Tides FoundationNational Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
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

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 Rainforest Alliance Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rainforest Alliance Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • Verite Inc: 19% of income from government
  • Yale University: 12% 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, 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 17 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 Rainforest Alliance’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