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

· Public charity

Rainforest Trust

RAINFOREST TRUST saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

$38M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$1.1M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Environment$14MAnimals$6.4MPhilanthropy$4.0MRecreation & Sports$338kEducation$209kScience & Tech$19k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $4,935,246, the rows itemized in this filing. The $37,740,034 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $32,804,788 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $40k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $355k
  • $250k+7 grants · $4.5M
$431,610
Median grant
7
States reached
$122M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY$1,065,888
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL - BOLIVIA$775,054
NATURA BOLIVIA FOUNDATION$771,856
PANTHERA CORPORATION$653,238
GORILLA REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION EDUCATION CENTER$520,726
RARE$431,610
KTK-BELT INC$314,602
DIAN FOSSEY GORILLA FUND$226,479
FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY$128,769
NEW VENTURE FUND$20,024
MONGABAY ORG CORP$20,000
INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION CAUCUS FOUNDATION (ICCF)$7,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 54% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%WOLF CREEK OPERATING FOUNDATION: $4.0M → 7%TURTLE CONSERVANCY: $95k → 10%NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL: $685k → 11%KTK-BELT: $719k → 6%PANTHERA CORP: $1.0M → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $1.2M → 28%NATURA BOLIVIA FOUNDATION: $772k → 16%HAITI NATIONAL TRUST INC: $129k → 15%DIAN FOSSEY GORILLA FUND: $226k → 13%GORILLA REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION EDUCATION CENTER: $521k → 12%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $325k → 6%RARE: $810k → 7%BLUELINE CONSERVATION INCENTIVES: $30k → 7%LEGADO INC: $135k → 9%NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL: $607k → 11%KTK-BELT INC: $395k → 6%PANTHERA CORPORATION: $653k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $1.1M → 28%NATURA BOLIVIA FOUNDATION: $244k → 16%INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE UNITED STATES: $30k → 14%HAITI NATIONAL TRUST INC: $46k → 15%DIAN FOSSEY GORILLA FUND: $118k → 13%GORILLA REHABILITATION & CONSERVATION EDUCATION: $263k → 12%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $95k → 6%RARE: $742k → 7%KTK-BELT INC: $372k → 6%PANTHERA CORPORATION: $344k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $500k → 28%CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON: $200k → 14%HAITI NATIONAL TRUST: $35k → 15%DIAN FOSSEY GORILLA FUND: $25k → 13%GORILLA REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION EDUCATION CENTER: $222k → 12%WOODLAND PARK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $65k → 9%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $30k → 6%RARE: $432k → 7%KTK-BELT INC: $315k → 6%PANTHERA CORPORATION: $270k → 17%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $428k → 28%INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION CAUCUS FOUNDATION: $40k → 14%WOODLAND PARK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $20k → 9%CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL - BOLIVIA: $775k → 7%KTK-BELT INC: $110k → 6%WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY: $416k → 28%AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $338k → 17%WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $90k → 14%FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $234k → 14%FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $129k → 14%FRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $81k → 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

NH
WA
WI
NY
PA
CA
CO
VA
NC
DC
GA
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $33M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

South America$19M · 59% · 42 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SUPPORT

Sub-Saharan Africa$7.8M · 24% · 35 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SUPPORT

East Asia and the Pacific$5.1M · 15% · 27 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SUPPORT

North America (Canada and Mexico)$381k · 1% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SUPPORT

South Asia$204k · 1% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SUPPORT

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$112k · 0% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: PROGRAM SUPPORT

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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 20% of Rainforest Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 13% of the giving stays in VA; by stated purpose, 5%.

Rainforest Trustlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 37% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$20M · 18 repeat orgs$5.7M to everyone else

18 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
17

Total granted

$20M
$4.9M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+63%

Still filing today

100%
82%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $775k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsInternationalScience & TechPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • REWILD
    5× · 2017–2024 · $4.1M · revenue +550%
  • WC
    Wildlife Conservation Society
    5× · 2021–2025 · $3.6M · revenue +43%
  • PC
    PANTHERA CORPORATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +26%

Funded once

  • TW
    THE WOLF CREEK OPERATING FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2019 · $4.0M · revenue -97% · 42% of their budget
  • AP
    AFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA
    one grant, 2024 · $338k · revenue 0%
  • CI
    CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON
    one grant, 2017 · $200k · revenue -28%
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
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
2
Amazon Conservation Team

The amazon conservation team (act) partners with indigenous and other local communities to protect tropical forests and strengthen traditional culture.

Science & Tech
3
Fundacion Cordillera Tropical

Conservation of natural resources

International
4
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…

Animals
5
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
6
Natura International Inc

Natura International conserves rainforests and other key natural ecosystems and the endangered species they contain through creation of protected areas in collaboration with local governments and communities in Latin America. In this way…

Public Benefit
7
Akashinga Inc

Deliver ecological stability and long-term protection of large-scale wilderness by supporting and empowering local communities.

Animals
8
Wildlife Alliance Inc

Wildlife alliance is the leader in direct protection of forests and wildlife in tropical asia. our mission is to combat deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, and poverty by partnering with local communities and governments.…

Animals
9
International Primate Protection League

Protecting the world's remaining primates by monitoring and exposing illegal trade, supporting a worldwide network of overseas sanctuaries and ngo's, publicising the plight of abused primates, and operating a sanctuary for resued gibbons.

Animals
10
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
11
International Conservation Caucus Network

To advance conservation governance through political will and to provide "on the ground" solutions to ensure sustained economic benefits while managing the earth's natural resource wealth for future generations.

Unclassified
12
The Nature Conservancy

The mission of the nature conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Frankfurt Zoological Society - Us Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Wolf Creek Operating Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

34 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 34 of the 37 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
34/34
Grantees still filing
28/34
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REWILD: $4,121,328 · AnimalsREWILDWildlife Conservation Society: $3,609,485 · AnimalsWildlife Conservation SocietyPANTHERA CORPORATION: $2,333,083 · AnimalsPANTHERA CORPORATIONGORILLA REHABILITATION CONSERVATION EDUCATION (GRACE) CENTER INC: $1,006,071 · AnimalsGORILLA REHABILITATION CONSERVATION EDUCATION (GRACE) C…American Bird Conservancy: $450,797 · AnimalsFRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY - US INC: $443,494 · Animals+6 more: $337,136 · AnimalsRARE: $1,983,388 · EnvironmentRAREKTK-BELT INC: $1,910,328 · EnvironmentKTK-BELT INCNATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL: $1,292,729 · EnvironmentNATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATION…CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $775,054 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOU…PARA LA NATURALEZA INC: $388,870 · EnvironmentPARA LA NATURALEZA INC+9 more: $363,803 · Environment+9 moreTHE WOLF CREEK OPERATING FOUNDATION: $4,000,000 · PhilanthropyTHE WOLF CREEK OP…NATURA BOLIVIA FOUNDATION: $1,016,136 · InternationalHAITI NATIONAL TRUST INC: $210,528 · InternationalWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $90,000 · InternationalDian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc: $370,183 · OtherBLUELINE CONSERVATION INCENTIVES: $29,700 · Other+2 more: $19,000 · OtherAFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $337,848 · Recreation & SportsCARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON: $200,000 · Science & TechDUKE UNIVERSITY: $19,468 · Education
Animals$12,301,394Environment$6,714,172Philanthropy$4,000,000International$1,316,664Other$418,883Recreation & Sports$337,848Science & Tech$200,000Education$19,468

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 budgetREWILD: $4,121,328 over 5y, 11% of budgetTHE WOLF CREEK OPERATING FOUNDATION: $4,000,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetWildlife Conservation Society: $3,609,485 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetPANTHERA CORPORATION: $2,333,083 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetRARE: $1,983,388 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetKTK-BELT INC: $1,910,328 over 5y, 62% of budgetNATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL: $1,292,729 over 2y, 7.9% of budgetNATURA BOLIVIA FOUNDATION: $1,016,136 over 2y, 21% of budgetGORILLA REHABILITATION CONSERVATION EDUCATION (GRACE) CENTER INC: $1,006,071 over 3y, 36% of budgetCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $775,054 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $450,797 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetFRANKFURT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY - US INC: $443,494 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetPARA LA NATURALEZA INC: $388,870 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetDian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Inc: $370,183 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetAFRICAN PARKS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA: $337,848 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetHAITI NATIONAL TRUST INC: $210,528 over 3y, 100% of budgetCARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON: $200,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTURTLE CONSERVANCY: $126,180 over 3y, 5.4% of budgetINTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION CAUCUS FOUNDATION: $97,000 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetWORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE: $90,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOODLAND PARK ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $85,175 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO: $78,991 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMONGABAY ORG CORP: $40,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetINT'L UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE & NATURAL RESOURCES - US: $30,375 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetALLIANCE FOR TOMPOTIKA CONSERVATION: $20,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetRESOLVE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWILD FORESTS AND FAUNA: $19,833 over 1y, 28% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $19,468 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGLOBAL CONSERVATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetISLAND CONSERVATION: $6,950 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC: $6,790 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Gordon E and Betty I …Conservation Internat…Silicon Valley Commun…National Geographic S…Resources Legacy FundThe Pew Charitable Tr…Marin Community Found…Bobolink FoundationAllen Family Philanth…Weeden FoundationArcus FoundationCalifornia Community …
Gordon E and Betty I Moore FoundationCA19× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · Conservation International Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Geographic Society · Resources Legacy Fund · The Pew Charitable Trusts · Marin Community Foundation · Bobolink Foundation · Allen Family Philanthropies · Weeden Foundation · Arcus Foundation · California Community 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 Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rainforest Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get 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 · 0–60%
    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 37 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rainforest’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