Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Foundation Supporting Climate Science Inc

TO BE ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES RELATED TO CLIMATE SCIENCE.

$91k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$33k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $83k
$10,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$11k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EARTH SCIENCES (CERES)$33,000
CO2 COALITION$20,000
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (CEI)$10,000
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE GWPF$10,000
HEARTLAND INSTITUTE$10,000
COMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW$8,000
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 (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 42% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%THE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EARTH SCIENCES (CERES): $33k → 10%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE GWPF: $10k → 17%COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (CEI): $10k → 14%HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: $10k → 14%CO2 COALITION: $20k → 7%COMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW: $8k → 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.
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.
03Its field
03the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 6 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)
5/5
Grantees still filing
1/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EARTH SCIENCES (CERES): $33,000 · OtherTHE CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EARTH SCIENCES (CERES…COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: $10,000 · OtherCOMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTECOMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW: $8,000 · OtherCOMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROWCO2 COALITION: $20,000 · EnvironmentCO2 COALITIONTHE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: $10,000 · Public BenefitTHE HEARTLAN…THE AMERICAN FRIENDS OF GWPF INC: $10,000 · Community ImprovementTHE AMERICAN…
Other$51,000Environment$20,000Public Benefit$10,000Community Improvement$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE AMERICAN FRIENDS OF GWPF INC: $10,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetCOMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW: $8,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Sarah Scaife Foundation IncorporatedPA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sarah Scaife Foundation Incorporated · Donors Trust Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 The Foundation Supporting Climate Science Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Foundation Supporting Climate Science Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s 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 · 0–5%
    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 6 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 Foundation Supporting Climate Science’s filings →

    More from the funding graph