Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants — funding profile →
Plinth

· Public charity

Heart of the Rockies Foundation

The Heart of the Rockies Foundation shall provide fundraising services to and hold title to assets that contribute to and support the charitable, public benefit programs of Heart of the Rockies Initiative.

$775k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$162k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.

Environment$5.8M
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 8 grants below total $504,907 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $774,907 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $270,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $85k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $420k
$62,698
Median grant
3
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION$162,209
THE CONSERVATION FUND$75,000
NATURE CONSERVANCY$70,000
HEART OF THE ROCKIES INITITIA$62,698
MONTANA LAND RELIANCE$50,000
SAGEBRUSH STEPPE LAND TRUST$45,000
WOOD RIVER LAND TRUST$30,000
FLATHEAD LAND TRUST$10,000
02The need
03

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 51% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%WOOD RIVER LAND TRUST: $30k → 7%TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $237k → 7%KANIKSU LAND TRUST: $30k → 12%SAGEBRUSH STEPPE LAND TRUST: $55k → 13%LEMHI REGIONAL RANCHLANDS: $78k → 14%PALOUSE LAND TRUST: $10k → 16%THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION: $212k → 9%BITTERROOT LAND TRUST: $200k → 11%INLAND NORTHWEST LAND CONSERV: $200k → 12%THE CONSERVATION FUND: $250k → 7%JACKSON HOLE LAND TRUST: $50k → 5%WOOD RIVER LAND TRUST: $19k → 7%TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $74k → 7%SAGEBRUSH STEPPE LAND TRUST: $45k → 13%THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION: $162k → 9%BITTERROOT LAND TRUST: $105k → 11%THE CONSERVATION FUND: $250k → 7%JACKSON HOLE LAND TRUST: $21k → 5%TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $30k → 7%SAGEBRUSH STEPPE LAND TRUST: $17k → 13%THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION: $123k → 9%THE CONSERVATION FUND: $100k → 7%ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION: $50k → 9%THE CONSERVATION FUND: $75k → 7%FIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST: $332k → 9%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $261k → 7%HEART OF THE ROCKIES INITITIA: $63k → 9%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $202k → 7%HEART OF THE ROCKIES INITITIA: $28k → 9%NATURE CONSERVANCY: $70k → 7%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Grants abroad, by region — $270k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Alberta$270k · 100% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: PROTECT LANDS

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. 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.

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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$4.3M · 13 repeat orgs$949k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +16% since the first grant, against -45% for the ones you funded once.

13 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
7

Total granted

$4.3M
$949k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
-45%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentFood & NutritionAnimalsOther

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

  • THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $675k · revenue +41%
  • FL
    FLATHEAD LAND TRUST
    4× · 2021–2024 · $598k · revenue +488%
  • BR
    BEAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY
    3× · 2021–2023 · $180k · revenue +48% · 33% of their budget

Funded once

  • FV
    FIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST
    one grant, 2023 · $332k · revenue -39%
  • WS
    WYOMING STOCK GROWERS LAND TRUST
    one grant, 2023 · $250k · revenue -89%
  • IN
    INLAND NORTHWEST LAND TRUST
    one grant, 2023 · $200k · revenue -45%

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
The Montana Land Reliance

The mission of the montana land reliance (mlr) is to partner with landowners to provide permanent protection for private lands that are significant for agricultural production, fish and wildlife habitat, and open space.

Environment
2
Whatcom Land Trust

The mission of the Whatcom Land Trust is to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, scenic, agricultural and open space lands in Whatcom County for future generations by securing interests in land and promoting land stewardship.

Environment
3
Shasta Land Trust

Conserve the beauty, character, and diversity of significant lands in far northern california. currently shasta land trust holds conservation easements that permanently protect about 66,000 acres of land.

Environment
4
Placer Land Trust

Placer Land Trust works with willing landowners and conservation partners to permanently protect and care for natural and agricultural lands in Placer County for current and future generations.

Environment
5
Idaho Conservation League Inc

Icl's mission is to create a conservation community and pragmatic, enduring solutions that protect and restore the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land and wildlife you love.

—
6
Lakes Region Conservation Trust

The mission of the Organization is the conservation of the natural resources of the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, the preservation of wildlife habitat, the stewardship of lands that define the character of the region and its quality of…

Environment
7
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
8
Land Trust of the Treasure Valley

To create oppurtunites for conservation of natural, scenic, historic, recreational and agricultural values of southwestern idaho's open spaces through collabarative efforts for current and future generations. the land trust indentifies…

Environment
9
The Great Land Trust Inc

Great land trust's mission is to conserve and steward lands and waters essential to the quality of life and economic health of alaskans.

Environment
10
Wallowa Land Trust

Our mission is to protect the rural nature of Wallowa County by working cooperatively with private landowners,indigenous people, local communities and governmental entities to conserve land.

Environment
11
Responsible Land Use
—
12
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lemhi Regional Land Trust and the most unlike its peers is The Nature Conservancy. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

04the grantee network

21 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
10/21
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

MONTANA LAND RELIANCE FOUNDATION INC — $977,000 · EnvironmentMONTANA LAND RELIANCE FOUNDATION INCTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION — $675,000 · EnvironmentTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATIONFLATHEAD LAND TRUST — $598,000 · EnvironmentFLATHEAD LAND TRUSTTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC — $341,200 · EnvironmentTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INCFIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST — $331,600 · EnvironmentFIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUSTBITTER ROOT LAND TRUST — $305,000 · EnvironmentBITTER ROOT LAND TRUSTGALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST — $223,255 · EnvironmentINLAND NORTHWEST LAND TRUST — $200,000 · EnvironmentBEAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY — $180,000 · Environment+8 more — $589,507 · Environment+8 moreTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $532,805 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVAN…THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC — $497,509 · OtherTHE VITAL GROUND FOU…WYOMING STOCK GROWERS LAND TRUST — $250,000 · Food & NutritionROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION INC — $50,000 · Animals
Environment$4,420,562Other$1,030,314Food & Nutrition$250,000Animals$50,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetMONTANA LAND RELIANCE FOUNDATION INC — $977,000 over 4y, 11% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION — $675,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetFLATHEAD LAND TRUST — $598,000 over 4y, 16% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $532,805 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC — $497,509 over 3y, 3.2% of budgetTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC — $341,200 over 3y, 6.7% of budgetFIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST — $331,600 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetBITTER ROOT LAND TRUST — $305,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetWYOMING STOCK GROWERS LAND TRUST — $250,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetGALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST — $223,255 over 2y, 3.8% of budgetINLAND NORTHWEST LAND TRUST — $200,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetBEAR RIVER LAND CONSERVANCY — $180,000 over 3y, 33% of budgetPRICKLY PEAR LAND TRUST — $144,915 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetSagebrush Steppe Land Trust Inc — $116,500 over 3y, 4.3% of budgetHEART OF THE ROCKIES INITIATIVE — $90,742 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetLEMHI REGIONAL LAND TRUST — $77,500 over 1y, 11% of budgetJACKSON HOLE LAND TRUST — $71,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION INC — $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOOD RIVER LAND TRUST CO — $48,850 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetKaniksu Land Trust Inc — $30,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetPALOUSE LAND TRUST INC — $10,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budget
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.

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.

Land Trust Alliance I…Heart of the Rockies …Cross Charitable Foun…National Fish and Wil…Cadeau FoundationAmerican Farmland Tru…The Conservation Fund…First Interstate Banc…The High Stakes Found…The Steele-Reese Foun…Community Foundation …The Nature Conservancy
Land Trust Alliance IncDC28.2× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Land Trust Alliance Inc · Heart of the Rockies Initiative · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Cadeau Foundation · American Farmland Trust · The Conservation Fund a Nonprofit Corporation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · The High Stakes Foundation · The Steele-Reese Foundation Xxxxx1004 · Community Foundation of Jackson Hole · The Nature Conservancy

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 Heart of the Rockies 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.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Heart of the Rockies Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Heart of the Rockies 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 21 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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