Loading…
· Public charity
Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc
Woodwell Climate Research Center is an organization of scientists who work with a worldwide network of partners to understand and manage climate change.
$5.3M
Granted FY2024
24
Grants
14
Communities
$1.6M
Largest
01What you fund
0160% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2024.
Human Services$3.1MEducation$2.1MScience & Tech$308kEnvironment$233kPublic Benefit$138kHealth$31kOther$3.9M
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
wake forestartsniaprofessionalpursuit
2021
kachemak bayissueslearningenvironmentalbay conservationcsrhosts
2022
kachemak bayissuesriskslearningenvironmentalbay conservationcsr
2023
kachemak bayissuesrisksenvironmentalbay conservationcsrbuzzards bay
2024
csrhealthbuzzards bayboard trusteeshostsconvergingunprecedented
2025
world'swwfdiversityforestslivelihoodsbiodiversityreduce
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 24 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k11 grants · $353k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $937k
- $250k+5 grants · $3.5M
$56,616
Median grant
14
States reached
$66M
Total assets
Largest grants
- Alaska Institute for Justice$1,554,963
- University of Alaska$689,671
- Harvard University$603,242
- University of California Santa Barbara$377,495
- Arizona State University$288,567
- Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois$227,385
- University of Connecticut$213,138
- University of Maryland$184,259
- Trustees of Tufts College$72,318
- Columbia University$64,211
- Buzzards Bay Coalition$62,727
- Northern Arizona University$56,616
- University of Massachusetts Amherst$56,213
- Bryn Mawr College$48,505
- GeoHazards International$47,128
02The need
04
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 (FY22–24, $3.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
85%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$8.3M · 25 repeat orgs$1.5M to everyone else
25 repeat relationships — 16 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
25
6
Total granted
$8.3M
$220k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+42%
+162%
Still filing today
64%
33%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.3M went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EducationScience & TechHuman ServicesEnvironmentPublic BenefitHealthOther
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
- AIAlaska Institute for Justice3× · 2022–2024 · $3.1M · revenue +193% · 58% of their budget
Harvard University4× · 2018–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +5%
Northern Arizona University4× · 2021–2024 · $294k · revenue +53%
Funded once
- BBATTELLEgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $71k · revenue +162%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGEone grant, 2018 · $44k
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITYone grant, 2019 · $33k · revenue +18%
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
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
Washington University
The washington university is a co-educational, nondenominational university with a long and distinguished history of teaching, research and (cont'd on schedule o)
Education
3
Norwich University
Norwich's mission is to give our youth an education that shall be american in its character.
Education
4
New York University
Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes.
Education
5
New England College
An independent liberal arts college offering undergraduate, graduate and professional programs.
Education
6
Washington College
Washington college challenges and inspires emerging citizen leaders to discover lives of purpose and passion.
Education
7
Williams College
Williams College strives to achieve educational excellence by fostering a community of learning in collaboration with students, faculty, staff, devoted alumni and parents.
Education
8
Colby-Sawyer College
Institute of Higher Learning
Education
9
Western New England University
See Schedule O Statement for Part III, Line 1 that also applies to Part I, Line 1
Education
10
New England Institute of Technology
The mission of new england institute of technology (neit) is described in schedule o*the mission of new england institute of technology (neit) is to provide specialized undergraduate and graduate degree and certificate programs which…
Education
11
New York Academy of Sciences
To advance scientific knowledge and to increase the number of scientifically informed individuals.
—
12
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Welfare Benefit Plans Trust
To provide health and life insurance benefits to covered eligible retirees of massachusetts institute of technology and their dependents, as well as individuals receiving long-term disability benefits for at least three years.
Membership Benefit
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Trustees of Boston University and the most unlike its peers is Battelle Memorial 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.
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
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 52 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
Closures · last 5 years
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
0.0%0/39
the rest of the field
11%
206,164/1,819,526
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
21 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
19/21
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$3,882,565Human Services$3,100,363Education$2,102,407Science & Tech$307,862Environment$232,706Public Benefit$138,180Health$31,466
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 Alaska Institute for Justice ↗
- Who funds Harvard University ↗
- Who funds Northern Arizona University ↗
- Who funds Buzzards Bay Coalition ↗
- Who funds State of Alaska ↗
- Who funds Bryn Mawr College ↗
- Who funds The Council on Strategic Risks ↗
- Who funds Trustees of Tufts College ↗
- Who funds International Cryosphere Climate ICCI ↗
- Who funds National Institute of Aerospace ↗
- Who funds BOSTON UNIVERSITY TRUSTEES OF ↗
- Who funds Yale University ↗
- Who funds Kachemak Bay Conservation Society ↗
- Who funds BATTELLE ↗
- Who funds GeoHazards International ↗
- Who funds Columbia University ↗
- Who funds CORNELL UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium ↗
- Who funds Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst ↗
- Who funds ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY ↗
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.
Johns Hopkins UniversityMD19.4× affinity7 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Johns Hopkins University · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Trustees of Boston University · The Trustees of Columbia University · University of Pittsburgh · The Nature Conservancy · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 organisation Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — 63% of income from government
- Buzzards Bay Coalition — 37% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Kachemak Bay Conservation Society.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 920090831 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue contracted over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 68% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc?
Find your warmest path to Woodwell Climate Research Center Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
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