· Private foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k13 grants · $54k
- $10k–50k59 grants · $1.4M
- $50k–250k170 grants · $21M
- $250k+139 grants · $211M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| RF CATALYTIC CAPITAL INC | $75,000,000 |
| AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION INC | $11,800,000 |
| RF CATALYTIC CAPITAL INC | $10,000,000 |
| CO-IMPACT PHILANTHROPIC FUNDS INC | $10,000,000 |
| CO-IMPACT PHILANTHROPIC FUNDS INC | $8,500,000 |
| RF CATALYTIC CAPITAL INC | $7,384,000 |
| GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS TUBERCULOSIS & MALARIA | $7,000,000 |
| RF CATALYTIC CAPITAL INC | $6,417,744 |
| WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME | $3,901,164 |
| AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC | $3,152,963 |
| UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR PROJECT SERVICE (UNOPS) | $2,500,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT | $2,500,000 |
| AFRICAN FIELD EPIDEMIOLOGY NETWORK | $2,000,000 |
| HOPEWELL FUND | $2,000,000 |
| FREUNDE VON GISAID EV | $1,547,316 |
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.
Your US giving — 80% of grant dollars ($1.4B). The need read here covers only this US portion; the 20% that went abroad ($361M) is mapped below.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $28.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 92% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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
Beyond the US — 20% of all-years giving ($361M)
67 countries, by the recipient’s country on the filing.
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. International giving is mapped by the recipient’s country from the same 990filings; comparable need data isn’t available at that grain.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 15% of The Rockefeller 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, 36% of the giving stays in NY; read by stated purpose it is 30% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +28% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.
1003 repeat relationships — 189 still active in FY2024, 814 since wound down; 95 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- RCRF CATALYTIC CAPITAL INC4× · 2020–2024 · $349M · revenue ×25 · 60% of their budget
- AHAmerican Heart Association Inc6× · 2019–2024 · $32M · revenue +43%
- ACATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES INC6× · 2019–2024 · $32M · revenue +3%
Funded once
- IFINTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATIONone grant, 2021 · $30M
- ILIHEALTH LABS INCone grant, 2022 · $5.0M
- ILINCANDESCENT LLCone grant, 2017 · $3.3M
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
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…
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…
At the internet society foundation, we focus on funding initiatives that strengthen the internet in function and reach so that it can effectively serve all people. our work advances the vision of the internet society (isoc): the internet…
The foreign policy research institute (frpi) is dedicated to producing the highest quality scholarship and nonpartisan policy analysis focused on crucial foreign policy and national security challenges facing the united states. we educate…
New york school of interior design provides the most innovative, immersive, and transformative interior design education in the world, demonstrating the impact of professionally designed interiors on the health, happiness, and well-being…
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
The mission of the international women's forum is to advance women's leadership worldwide. iwf takes direct action to achieve our mission in three important ways. connect: our convenings provide networking and cutting-edge content…
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Evidence Action and the most unlike its peers is Berggruen Institute. 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.
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 30 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.8% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
1297 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. 1297 of the 2,000 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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.
- Who funds RF CATALYTIC CAPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds NEW VENTURE FUND ↗
- Who funds ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC ↗
- Who funds CO-IMPACT PHILANTHROPIC FUNDS INC ↗
- Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
- Who funds ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds THE ENERGY FOR GROWTH HUB INC ↗
- Who funds THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds PATH ↗
- Who funds DATAKIND INC ↗
- Who funds Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds Meridian Institute ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION INC ↗
- Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
- Who funds UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds AMREF HEALTH AFRICA INC INC (AMREF) ↗
- Who funds Dalberg Catalyst ↗
- Who funds Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds PACT INC ↗
- Who funds PACT INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ACCESS TO CAPITAL FOR ENTREPRENEURS INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: The Ford Foundation · Skoll Fund · Freedom Together Foundation · The Skoll Foundation · Foundation to Promote Open Society · Gates Foundation · Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · Omidyar Network Fund Inc · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · The Nathan Cummings Foundation Inc · The Commonwealth Fund
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 The Rockefeller 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.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- Enterprise Community Partners Inc — 22% of income from government
- Foodcorps Inc — 21% of income from government
- Trustees of Tufts College — 13% of income from government
- Trustees of Boston University — 12% of income from government
- Johns Hopkins University — 12% of income from government
- Children's Hospital Corporation — 10% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- African American Alliance of Cdfi CEOs — 3% of income from government
- United Way of Essex & West Hudson D/B/a United Way of Greater Newark — 2% of income from government
- The Center for Effective Philanthropy Inc — 0% of income from government
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.