Skip to content
WRLD Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

WRLD Foundation

WRLD Foundation's mission is to support scientific projects, awareness-raising efforts, educational programs, and other charitable undertakings.

$9.6M
Granted FY2024still arriving
27
Grants FY2024still arriving
14
States reached
$835k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Environment$6.1MInternational$24k
02FY2024 · 27 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 27 grants below total $4,654,273, the rows itemized in this filing. The $9,618,603 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,964,330 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $51k
  • $50k–250k20 grants · $2.6M
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.0M
$100,000
Median grant
14
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Global Forest Generation$834,678
ReWild$675,921
CALCEF Innovations$441,712
Plant with Purpose$240,000
International Cryosphere Climate$223,333
Clean Air Task Force INC$215,000
One Tree planted$190,579
Conservation Strategy Fund$174,729
Amazon Frontlines$160,000
Vycarb$150,000
Precision Development Inc$122,866
Clinton Health Access Initiative$120,000
Jocotoco Conservation Foundation$102,027
Rights and Resources Institute$100,000
Industrious Education Fund$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 68% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Parallel Carbon: $140k → 10%Heirloom Carbon Technologies Inc: $12k → 11%Precision Development Inc: $123k → 8%Clean Air Task Force INC: $215k → 16%Alkali Earth Inc: $75k → 11%CALCEF Innovations: $442k → 10%Amazon Frontlines: $160k → 10%Plant with Purpose: $12k → 11%Vycarb: $150k → 20%Mati Carbon PBC: $100k → 16%Rights and Resources Institute: $100k → 14%Marine Megafauna Foundation: $16k → 11%Holocene Climate Corporation: $100k → 12%Biosorra LLC: $100k → 11%Industrious Education Fund: $100k → 16%Rural Development Institute dba Landesa: $210k → 9%Amigos de Iracambi (US) Inc: $20k → 6%Rare Inc: $100k → 7%Global Forest Generation: $835k → 9%One Tree planted: $191k → 10%International Cryosphere Climate: $223k → 12%Jocotoco Conservation Foundation: $102k → 19%OCTAVIA CARBON CO: $200k → 10%Clean Air Task Force INC: $95k → 16%NEXCALCEF Innovations: $12k → 10%Amazon Frontlines: $60k → 10%Plant with Purpose: $240k → 11%Conservation Strategy Fund: $175k → 14%Marine Megafauna Foundation: $7k → 11%Mangrove Action Project: $14k → 9%Amigos de Iracambi (US) Inc: $8k → 6%Global Forest Generation: $200k → 9%International Cryosphere Climate Inc: $70k → 12%Clean Air Task Force Inc: $12k → 16%Tides Foundation: $250k → 10%Rural Devleopment Institute: $75k → 9%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

VT
WA
MN
NY
MA
OH
CA
VA
MD
DE
TN
NC
DC
TX
FL

Grants abroad, by region: $5.0M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 7 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$2.2M · 45% · 22 grants

Stated purpose: Project support for the Climate Transformation Fund and carbon dioxide removal · Project support for the Nature Transformation Fund · Project support for the Ocean Fund

Sub-Saharan Africa$1.1M · 23% · 9 grants

Stated purpose: Project support for the Forest & Landscapes Fund · Project support for the Nature Transformation Fund · Project support for the Ocean Fund

South Asia$784k · 16% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: Project support for the Climate Transformation Fund and carbon dioxide removal · Project support for the Nature Transformation Fund · Project support for the Ocean Fund

East Asia and the Pacific$426k · 9% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: Project support for the Climate Transformation Fund and carbon dioxide removal

South America$346k · 7% · 6 grants

Stated purpose: Project support for the Climate Transformation Fund and carbon dioxide removal · Project support for the Forest & Landscapes Fund · Project support for the Ocean Fund

North America (Canada and Mexico)$30k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Project support for the Climate Transformation Fund and carbon dioxide removal

Central America and the Caribbean$20k · 0% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Project support for the Forest & Landscapes Fund

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
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 7% of WRLD Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

WRLD Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 2.4% 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.

47%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.7M · 8 repeat orgs$3.1M to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
6

Total granted

$2.7M
$828k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%
+143%

Still filing today

100%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.2M went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
EnvironmentInternationalScience & TechCommunity ImprovementAnimalsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • CI
    CalCef Innovations
    2× · 2022–2024 · $454k · revenue +76%
  • IC
    INTERNATIONAL CRYOSPHERE CLIMATE INITIATIVE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $293k · revenue +198% · 48% of their budget
  • FU
    FLORESTA USA INCORPORATED
    2× · 2022–2024 · $252k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • R
    ReWild
    one grant, 2023 · $259k
  • RD
    RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2023 · $210k · revenue +23%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $200k
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
Rainforest Foundation Inc

The purpose of rainforest foundation us is to support indigenous peoples and forest communities in their efforts to secure their lands, protect their environment, and uphold their rights.

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
Coalition for Rainforest Nations Secretariat

The coalition for rainforest nations seeks to underpin lasting environmental sustainability and economic advancement with strengthened technical capacity and international market reform designed to enhance forest stewardship, biodiversity,…

Environment
4
Reforest the Tropics Incorporated

Development of programs to offset personal and corporate carbon emissions through reforestation in the tropics.

Environment
5
Nature for Justice

To empower frontline communities to lead nature-based solutions that advance climate justice, ecosystem restoration, and resilient livelihoods through connecting locally-led initiatives to funding, markets, and technical support.

Environment
6
Natura International Inc

Natura International conserves rainforests and other key natural ecosystems and the endangered species they contain through creation of protected areas in collaboration with local governments and communities in Latin America. In this way…

Public Benefit
7
Amazon Watch Inc

To protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous communities in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of the Amazon Basin's…

Environment
8
Conservation International Foundation

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

Environment
9
Wildaid Inc

Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.

Animals
10
Wild Earth Allies Inc

Our mission is to protect vital areas of our natural world for the benefit of wildlife, habitats, and people by inspiring collaborative action. Our vision is a world where wildlife and people flourish in healthy ecosystems that sustain us…

Environment
11
Nature and Culture International

Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.

Environment
12
Climate Foundation

To research and develop healthy climate solutions comprising global food security, ecosystem regeneration and carbon balance in seas and soils.

Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rewild; the most unlike its peers is International Cryosphere Climate Initiative. 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

21 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. 21 of the 32 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
10/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Global Forest Generation: $1,034,678 · EnvironmentGlobal Forest GenerationCalCef Innovations: $453,644 · EnvironmentCalCef InnovationsCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $321,932 · EnvironmentCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INCAMAZON FRONTLINES: $220,000 · EnvironmentAMAZON FRONTLINESCONSERVATION STRATEGY FUND: $174,729 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION STRATEGY FUNDRARE: $100,000 · EnvironmentRIGHTS AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC: $100,000 · Environment+3 more: $96,715 · EnvironmentReWild: $258,750 · OtherReWildIndividual grant recipient: $199,750 · OtherIndividual grant recipi…Vycarb: $150,000 · OtherVycarbParallel Carbon: $139,700 · OtherParallel CarbonClinton Health Access Initiative: $120,000 · OtherClinton Health Access I…HOLOCENE CLIMATE CORPORATION: $100,000 · OtherHOLOCENE CLIMATE CORPOR…Individual grant recipient: $100,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipi…Biosorra LLC: $100,000 · OtherBiosorra LLCAlkali Earth Inc: $75,000 · OtherAlkali Earth Inc+2 more: $31,708 · OtherREWILD: $675,921 · AnimalsREWILDTIDES FOUNDATION: $350,000 · PhilanthropyTIDES FOUN…ONE TREE PLANTED INC: $190,579 · PhilanthropyONE TREE P…FLORESTA USA INCORPORATED: $251,932 · InternationalFLORESTA …PRECISION DEVELOPMENT INC: $122,866 · InternationalPRECISION…HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $111,932 · InternationalHUMAN RIG…MARINE MEGAFAUNA FOUNDATION: $23,635 · International+1 more: $16,938 · InternationalINTERNATIONAL CRYOSPHERE CLIMATE INITIATIVE: $293,332 · Science & TechRURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE: $210,000 · Community ImprovementJocotoco Conservation Foundation: $102,027 · Education
Environment$2,501,698Other$1,274,908Animals$675,921Philanthropy$540,579International$527,303Science & Tech$293,332Community Improvement$210,000Education$102,027

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 budgetGlobal Forest Generation: $1,034,678 over 2y, 24% of budgetREWILD: $675,921 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCalCef Innovations: $453,644 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $350,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $321,932 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetINTERNATIONAL CRYOSPHERE CLIMATE INITIATIVE: $293,332 over 2y, 48% of budgetFLORESTA USA INCORPORATED: $251,932 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetAMAZON FRONTLINES: $220,000 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetRURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE: $210,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetONE TREE PLANTED INC: $190,579 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCONSERVATION STRATEGY FUND: $174,729 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetPRECISION DEVELOPMENT INC: $122,866 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INC: $111,932 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetJocotoco Conservation Foundation: $102,027 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetRARE: $100,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRIGHTS AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetWRLD Foundation: $75,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMARINE MEGAFAUNA FOUNDATION: $23,635 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetWILDLIFEDIRECT INC: $16,938 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetMANGROVE ACTION PROJECT: $14,215 over 1y, 1.2% 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.

Wellspring Philanthro…The David and Lucile …Silicon Valley Commun…National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
Wellspring Philanthropic Fund IncNY13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Wellspring Philanthropic Fund Inc · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    5get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 WRLD Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to WRLD 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 32 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on WRLD’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