Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation Dossiers
Plinth

· Private foundation

Rivian Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$6.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
54
Grants FY2025still arriving
20
States reached
$900k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0197% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2024–2025.

Environment$9.8MPhilanthropy$1.0MArts & Culture$600kInternational$550kHuman Services$340kFood & Nutrition$140kHealth$125kYouth Development$80kOther$0
02FY2025 · 54 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k11 grants · $380k
  • $50k–250k37 grants · $3.0M
  • $250k+6 grants · $3.3M
$60,000
Median grant
20
States reached
$656M
Total assets

Anchored by a single position — about 92% of reported assets are held in Rivian Automotive Inc.

Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE WILDLANDS CONSERVANCY$900,000
RESOURCES LEGACY FUND$850,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$500,000
NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST (ORCA)$500,000
GLOBAL IMPACT$250,000
ALLIANCE FOR TRIBAL CLEAN ENERGY$250,000
CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION$200,000
VIEQUES CONSERVATION AND HISTORICAL TRUST$185,000
TROUT UNLIMITED$150,000
INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION$150,000
SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS$150,000
WILD FOUNDATION$125,000
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION$100,000
FORCE BLUE INC$100,000
STICHTING DEEP SEA CONSERVATION COALITION$100,000
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 (FY24–25, $340k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION: $150k → 14%INDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION: $150k → 14%SOUL TRAK OUTDOORS: $20k → 14%SOUL TRAK OUTDOORS: $20k → 14%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

WA
MT
MN
IL
MI
NY
OR
PA
CA
CO
VA
DE
NM
TN
SC
DC
GA
TX
FL

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.

04

Where the work is directed

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

About 27% of Rivian Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 30% of the giving stays in CA; read by stated purpose it is 43% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

Rivian Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 7.3% directed abroad (not shown)

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$5.4M · 33 repeat orgs$4.0M to everyone else

33 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

33
6

Total granted

$5.4M
$1.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

88%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.5M went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureScience & TechRecreation & SportsAnimalsInternationalOther

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

  • AF
    ALLIANCE FOR TRIBAL CLEAN ENERGY INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $500k · revenue +120%
  • CL
    Conservation Lands Foundation
    2× · 2024–2025 · $400k · revenue +84%
  • TV
    THE VIEQUES CONSERVATION AND HISTORICAL TRUST INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $370k · revenue +62%

Funded once

  • R
    RARE
    one grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue 0%
  • GA
    GRID ALTERNATIVES
    one grant, 2024 · $300k
  • MW
    MAASAI WILDERNESS CONSERVATION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue +83%

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
Sustainable Conservation

Sustainable Conservation advances the collaborative stewardship of Californias land, air, and water for the benefit of nature and people. For over three decades, Sustainable Conservation has built coalitions of people with different…

Environment
2
Rainforest Trust

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

International
3
Tuolumne River Preservation Trust dba Yosemite Rivers Alliance

At Yosemite Rivers Alliance, we unite conservation and community to protect and restore the three rivers that ?ow through the Yosemite Regionthe Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced.

—
4
Nature Collective

Nature collective's mission is to drive a passion for nature for all. we think inclusively and diversely when serving those devoid of nature those who remember nature and want to connect back to it and those who have an affinity with…

Environment
5
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
6
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
7
Cascadia Wildlands

Cascadia wildlands defends and restores cacasia's wild ecosystems in the forests,in the courts, and in the streets. we envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, a stable climate, and…

Environment
8
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
9
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
10
The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust

The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust leads and inspires action to conserve and enhance the landscape of the Mountains to Sound Greenway, ensuring a long-term balance between people and nature.

Environment
11
Green Cities Accord

Green Cities Accord is a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering climate resilient communities through investments in tree canopy infrastructure to improve environmental health, climate resilience, and equity in communities. We focus…

Environment
12
American Forests

Protection and expansion of threatened urban and wildland forest ecosystems. See Part III

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Treepeople Inc and the most unlike its peers is South River Watershed Alliance. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyUrban Agriculture & Food Ac…Environmental Advocacy Orga…Native Hawaiian Community D…Pregnancy Support ServicesWildlife Rehabilitation Cen…Land Conservation Organizat…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 28 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%10%<5yr14%12%5–10yr19%14%10–20yr16%28%20–35yr13%26%35–55yr16%10%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%9%<5yr14%5%5–10yr19%10%10–20yr16%33%20–35yr13%22%35–55yr16%22%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 9% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
4%2/54
the rest of the field
13%
240,394/1,819,511

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

54 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 54 of the 60 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
53/54
Grantees still filing
23/54
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

The Wildlands Conservancy — $900,000 · EnvironmentThe Wildlands ConservancyRESOURCES LEGACY FUND — $850,000 · EnvironmentRESOURCES LEGACY FUNDALLIANCE FOR TRIBAL CLEAN ENERGY INC — $500,000 · EnvironmentALLIANCE FOR TRIBAL CLEAN ENERGY INCConservation Lands Foundation — $400,000 · EnvironmentConservation Lands FoundationRARE — $300,000 · EnvironmentRAREOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE LAND TRUST INC — $250,000 · EnvironmentTHE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION — $200,000 · EnvironmentECOLOGY CENTER — $180,000 · EnvironmentTHE GREENING OF DETROIT — $180,000 · Environment+18 more — $1,430,000 · Environment+18 moreTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $2,000,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYTHE VIEQUES CONSERVATION AND HISTORICAL TRUST INC — $370,000 · OtherTHE VIEQUES CONSERVATION AND HISTORICAL TRU…GRID ALTERNATIVES — $300,000 · OtherGRID ALTERNATIVESINTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC — $250,000 · OtherSTICHTING DEEP SEA CONSERVATION COALITION — $200,000 · OtherFORCE BLUE INC — $200,000 · OtherTROUT UNLIMITED INC — $300,000 · OtherTROUT UNLIMITED INC+14 more — $1,315,000 · Other+14 moreNATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST — $1,000,000 · PhilanthropyMAASAI WILDERNESS CONSERVATION FUND — $300,000 · InternationalGlobal Impact — $250,000 · InternationalTHE FILM COLLABORATIVE INC — $250,000 · Arts & CultureNORTHERN CHUMASH TRIBAL COUNCIL — $140,000 · Arts & CultureFRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE INC — $70,000 · Arts & CultureWYLDE CENTER INC — $40,000 · Arts & CultureArabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance — $40,000 · Arts & CultureSOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS — $300,000 · Science & TechSouth River Watershed Alliance — $80,000 · Science & TechINDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION — $300,000 · Human ServicesSoul Trak Outdoors — $40,000 · Human Services
Environment$5,190,000Other$4,935,000Philanthropy$1,000,000International$550,000Arts & Culture$540,000Science & Tech$380,000Human Services$340,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $2,000,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST — $1,000,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe Wildlands Conservancy — $900,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetALLIANCE FOR TRIBAL CLEAN ENERGY INC — $500,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetConservation Lands Foundation — $400,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetTHE VIEQUES CONSERVATION AND HISTORICAL TRUST INC — $370,000 over 2y, 21% of budgetRARE — $300,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTROUT UNLIMITED INC — $300,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS — $300,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetMAASAI WILDERNESS CONSERVATION FUND — $300,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetINDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION — $300,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetINTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC — $250,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE LAND TRUST INC — $250,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE FILM COLLABORATIVE INC — $250,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetGlobal Impact — $250,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION — $200,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetECOLOGY CENTER — $180,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE GREENING OF DETROIT — $180,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetMAD AGRICULTURE — $140,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetDuwamish River Cleanup Coalition - TAG — $140,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetGEORGIA CONSERVANCY INC — $140,000 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetOREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION — $140,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetNORTHERN CHUMASH TRIBAL COUNCIL — $140,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetRESOLVE Incorporated — $125,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetNATURE FOR ALL — $120,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetTONGVA TARAXAT PAXAAVXA CONSERVANCY — $100,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetSHELTERWOOD COLLECTIVE — $100,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetPRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK — $100,000 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetCUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT INC — $100,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetNUESTRA TIERRA CONSERVATION PROJECT — $100,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetBILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC — $100,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCalWild — $100,000 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetHARLEM GROWN INC — $100,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetURBAN ROOTS MN — $80,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetSouth River Watershed Alliance — $80,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetLAGUNA CANYON FOUNDATION — $60,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE OWYHEE — $60,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetOCMULGEE NATIONAL PARK & PRESERVE INITIATIVE INC — $60,000 over 1y, 9.3% of budgetECOLOGY ACTION CENTER — $60,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetLos Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust — $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetSoul Trak Outdoors — $40,000 over 2y, 6.6% of budgetWYLDE CENTER INC — $40,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetTreeFolks Inc — $40,000 over 1y, 1.6% 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.

PatagoniaorgResources Legacy FundThe Nature ConservancyNational Fish and Wil…Rei Cooperative Actio…Western Conservation …Rockefeller Philanthr…The Schmidt Family Fo…Clif Family FoundationNational Park Foundat…Wyss FoundationImpactassetsinc
PatagoniaorgCA43.8× affinity21 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Resources Legacy Fund · The Nature Conservancy · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Rei Cooperative Action Fund · Western Conservation Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · The Schmidt Family Foundation · Clif Family Foundation · National Park Foundation · Wyss Foundation · Impactassetsinc

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 Rivian Foundation 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
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%2%6%14%25%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 19%
  • Friends of Trees — 100% of income from government
  • Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper Inc — 19% of income from government
  • Oregon Natural Desert Association — 9% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
16report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Rivian Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Rivian 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 60 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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 camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines