· Private foundation
Dornick Foundation Inc
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $5k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $175k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $425k
- $250k+3 grants · $900k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY | $400,000 |
| ORGANIZING INSTITUTE SOUTH AND WEST IAF | $250,000 |
| VALLEY SETTLEMENT | $250,000 |
| ENGLISH IN ACTION | $160,000 |
| ASPEN MOUNTAIN ARTIST RESIDENCY | $100,000 |
| WILDERNESS WORKSHOP | $65,000 |
| THE ART BASE | $50,000 |
| COLORADO INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC LIFE | $50,000 |
| ASPEN JOURNALISM | $35,000 |
| VALLEY VIEW FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| IBU FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| COLOMBIA LAND TRUST | $18,000 |
| OREGON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $16,000 |
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON | $16,000 |
| CORBA - CONCERNED OFF-ROAD BICYCLISTS | $10,000 |
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 human-services grants (FY25–25, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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
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.
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 +22% since the first grant, against +20% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $993k 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
- MManaus7× · 2017–2024 · $2.5M · revenue +210% · 88% of their budget
- VSVALLEY SETTLEMENT2× · 2017–2025 · $274k · revenue +26%
- TAThe Art Base2× · 2021–2025 · $86k · revenue +22%
Funded once
- SISOUTHWEST INTERFAITH EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2017 · $308k
- IEInterfaith Education Fund Incone grant, 2018 · $250k · revenue -99%
- TMTHE MOSAIC FILM EXPERIENCEgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $250k · revenue +302%
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.
To broaden the nature of a liberal arts education; teach critical thinking about social & environmental issues; foster understanding of & respect for natural & human communities; & cultivate a sense of place that encourages personal,…
The Boulder Watershed Collective is a 501c3 non-profit stakeholder-driven organization established to address forested watershed health,resiliency and stewardship. We have three program areas: ClimateAdaptation and Resilience Watershed…
Rogue Climate's mission is to empower Southern Oregon communities most impacted by climate change including low-income, rural, youth, seniors & communities of color, to win climate justice by organizing for clean energy, sustainable jobs &…
Protecting our shrub-steppe and connecting people to this vanishing landscape.
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
Watershed collaboration and stewardship
ISET-International catalyzes transformative changes toward a more resilient and equitable future. Through research, training and implementation activities, we improve understanding and elevate the level of dialog and practice as society…
Taproot Earth works with communities to support strategies around the use of water, energy and land.
To accelerate progress in interventions that harness Earths natural systems to stabilize the climate.
Building leaders to protect the west's land, air, and water.
The Clean Energy Transition Institute (CETI) is an independent, nonpartisan research and analysis nonprofit whose mission is to accelerate an equitable clean energy transition in the Northwest.
Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc and the most unlike its peers is I Stand With My Pack Inc. 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 24 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
34 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. 34 of the 46 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
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 Manaus ↗
- Who funds ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ↗
- Who funds Colorado Institute for Public Life ↗
- Who funds VALLEY SETTLEMENT ↗
- Who funds Interfaith Education Fund Inc ↗
- Who funds THE MOSAIC FILM EXPERIENCE ↗
- Who funds Organizing Institute South and West IAF ↗
- Who funds English in Action ↗
- Who funds Henderson County & Thermal Belt Habitat for Humanity ↗
- Who funds WILDERNESS WORKSHOP ↗
- Who funds The Art Base ↗
- Who funds HOMEWARD BOUND OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA INC ↗
- Who funds Aspen Journalism ↗
- Who funds Stepping Stones Wilderness Initiati ↗
- Who funds WESTERN COLORADO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds A Way Out Inc ↗
- Who funds THE ARTS CAMPUS AT WILLITS ↗
- Who funds IBU Foundation ↗
- Who funds CHARITABLE ALLIES INC ↗
- Who funds Montford Hall ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds PAULINE S SCHNEEGAS WILDLIFE FOUNDA ↗
- Who funds COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds Community Foundation for SW Washington ↗
- Who funds THE OREGON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TOGETHER WEST MICHIGAN EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds HIGHLANDER RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM ↗
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: Aspen Community Foundation · The Thrift Shop · Colorado Gives Foundation · Alpenglow Foundation · Rose Community Foundation · Catto Shaw Foundation · Aspen Business Center Foundation · The Thendara Foundation · Brady Foundation · Ernst and Wilma Martens Foundation · The Flunison Fund · Ruth a Carver 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 organization Dornick Foundation 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- The Oregon Community Foundation — 2% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Dornick Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Dornick Foundation Inc 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.