Skip to content
Rivian Foundation at a glance

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

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

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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
NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST (ORCA)$500,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$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
FORCE BLUE INC$100,000
STICHTING DEEP SEA CONSERVATION COALITION$100,000
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION$100,000
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:

Its 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 its 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
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

WA
MT
MN
IL
MI
NY
OR
PA
CA
CO
VA
DE
NM
TN
SC
DC
GA
TX
FL
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.
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 27% of Rivian Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 30% of the giving stays in CA; by stated purpose, 43%.

Rivian Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 7.3% 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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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%
+8%

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
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

  • 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
    RAREgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue +28%
  • GA
    GRID ALTERNATIVES
    one grant, 2024 · $300k
  • MW
    MAASAI WILDERNESS CONSERVATION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue +59%
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
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Treepeople Inc; 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.
05the grantee network

54 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. 54 of the 60 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)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
53/54
Grantees still filing
24/54
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 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 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 budgetTROUT UNLIMITED INC: $300,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetRARE: $300,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetINDIAN LAND TENURE FOUNDATION: $300,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetMAASAI WILDERNESS CONSERVATION FUND: $300,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetSOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND NETWORKS: $300,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetTHE FILM COLLABORATIVE INC: $250,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetINTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION INC: $250,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetGlobal Impact: $250,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOPEN SPACE INSTITUTE LAND TRUST INC: $250,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 budgetDuwamish River Cleanup Coalition - TAG: $140,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetNORTHERN CHUMASH TRIBAL COUNCIL: $140,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetMAD AGRICULTURE: $140,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetGEORGIA CONSERVANCY INC: $140,000 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetOREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION: $140,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetRESOLVE Incorporated: $125,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetNATURE FOR ALL: $120,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetHARLEM GROWN INC: $100,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetBILLION OYSTER PROJECT INC: $100,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetPRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK: $100,000 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetNUESTRA TIERRA CONSERVATION PROJECT: $100,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetCUMBERLAND RIVER COMPACT INC: $100,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetCalWild: $100,000 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetTONGVA TARAXAT PAXAAVXA CONSERVANCY: $100,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetSHELTERWOOD COLLECTIVE: $100,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetSouth River Watershed Alliance: $80,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetURBAN ROOTS MN: $80,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE OWYHEE: $60,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetECOLOGY ACTION CENTER: $60,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetOCMULGEE NATIONAL PARK & PRESERVE INITIATIVE INC: $60,000 over 1y, 9.3% of budgetLAGUNA CANYON FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetLos Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTreeFolks Inc: $40,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetWYLDE CENTER INC: $40,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetSoul Trak Outdoors: $40,000 over 2y, 6.6% of budgetArabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance: $40,000 over 1y, 5.9% 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.

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%2%6%14%25%funder's 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
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.
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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 60 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-PF 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 Rivian’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