Skip to content
Resources for the Future Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Resources for the Future Inc

RFF's mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement.

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
12
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 17 grants below total $705,644, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,052,887 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $347,243 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

  • $10k–50k12 grants · $356k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $349k
$42,443
Median grant
12
States reached
$81M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Harvard University$100,000
University of Wyoming$99,243
WVU Foundation Inc$50,000
Swaniti Initiative$50,000
University of Pittsburgh$50,000
Arizona State University$49,960
The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara$49,891
Urban Institute$49,250
The University of Oklahoma$42,443
University of Kentucky Research Foundation$30,706
Trustees of The U of Pennsylvania$28,750
Montana State University$25,000
California Institute of Technology$24,975
California State University Bakerfield Foundation$19,960
WVU Research Corporation$12,500
02The need
02

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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY: $10k → 16%California Institute of Technology: $25k → 14%The Regents of the University of California Santa Barbara: $50k → 14%California State University Bakerfield Foundation: $20k → 18%Swaniti Initiative: $50k → 16%The University of Oklahoma: $42k → 13%Urban Institute: $49k → 14%The University of Tennessee: $10k → 12%WVU Research Corporation: $13k → 19%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $347k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 3 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)$270k · 78% · 4 grants

Stated purpose: Research on regional solar radiation management interventions · Research & collaboration on issues related to managing competitiveness risks on the path to net-zero emissions. · Research on climate, trade, and industry under increasing geopolitical fragmentation

North America (Canada and Mexico)$47k · 14% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Research related to cleaning up the legacy of oil and gas on native land: insights from Canada

Uk$30k · 9% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Research to support methodological improvements in the ers cost of foodborne illness data

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 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
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
2
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
3
University of Virginia Investment Management Company

The university of virginia investment management company (uvimco) is organized to invest funds on behalf of the rector and visitors of the university of virginia (the university or uva) and university-associated organizations (uaos).

Education
4
Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Wpi transforms lives, turns knowledge into action to confront global challenges, and revolutionizes stem through distinctive and inclusive education, projects and research. (http://www.wpi.edu/about/mission.html)

—
5
The George Washington University

The mission of the george washington university (gw) is to educate individuals in liberal arts, languages, sciences, learned professions, and other courses and subjects of study, and to conduct scholarly research and publish the findings…

Education
6
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
7
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
8
Trustees of Tufts College

Education and Research

Education
9
University of New Haven

The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…

Education
10
The University of TexasTexas a&M Investment Management Company

To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…

Education
11
William Marsh Rice University

As a leading research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this…

Education
12
Point Park University

Provides innovative education in a dynamic urban setting. dedicated to academic excellence and community engagement,we prepare students of diverse backgrounds with the knowledge, skill,and experience to lead meaningful lives as informed…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Pittsburgh; the most unlike its peers is Swaniti Initiative. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 18 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
1/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

President and Fellows of Harvard College: $100,000 · EducationPresident and Fellows of Harvard CollegeWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · EducationWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INCUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $50,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGHUniversity of Kentucky Research Foundation: $30,706 · EducationUniversity of Kentucky Research FoundationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $28,750 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIACALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $24,975 · EducationCALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD FOUNDATION: $19,960 · EducationCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD FOUNDATIONWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $12,500 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WYOMING: $99,243 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WYOMINGARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: $49,960 · OtherARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA: $49,891 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARAUNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $42,443 · OtherUNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMAMONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY: $25,000 · OtherMONTANA STATE UNIVERSITYTOWN OF ESTES PARK: $12,500 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE: $10,466 · OtherSWANITI INITIATIVE: $50,000 · Public BenefitTHE URBAN INSTITUTE: $49,250 · Social ScienceAMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY: $10,000 · Science & Tech
Education$316,891Other$289,503Public Benefit$50,000Social Science$49,250Science & Tech$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSWANITI INITIATIVE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Kentucky Research Foundation: $30,706 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $28,750 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: $24,975 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD FOUNDATION: $19,960 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY: $10,000 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Resources for the Future Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Resources for the Future Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • American Meteorological Society: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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 18 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 Resources for the Future’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