Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Heart of the Rockies Initiative

The Heart of the Rockies Initiative is a partnership of 29 local, regional, and national land trusts in the Central Rockies of North America.

$172k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$64k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
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 FY2017–2024.

Environment$618kCrime & Legal$94kEducation$35kHuman Services$19kCommunity Improvement$19kCivil Rights$18k
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 4 grants below total $117,018 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $172,110 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $55,092 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

  • Under $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $39k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $64k
$38,711
Median grant
3
States reached
$889k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
IDAHO COALITION OF LAND TRUST$63,807
WESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE$38,711
MONTANA ACCESS PROJECT LLC$8,500
SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS$6,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 83% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%WOOD RIVER LAND TRUST: $10k → 7%TETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST: $10k → 7%IDAHO COALITION OF LAND TRUST: $64k → 8%SAGEBRUSH STEPPE LAND TRUST: $7k → 13%PALOUSE LAND TRUST: $11k → 16%MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CONSER: $7k → 9%THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION: $15k → 9%GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST: $10k → 10%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS: $27k → 10%MONTANA ACCESS PROJECT LLC: $9k → 11%GRANITE CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $6k → 11%BITTERROOT LAND TRUST: $10k → 11%Conservation Science Collabor: $10k → 12%WILLOW CREEK RANCH: $19k → 14%WATERSHED RESTORATION COALITI: $8k → 16%CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENA: $11k → 18%ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT RANCHLAN: $10k → 20%TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $8k → 10%LAND TRUST ALLIANCE: $10k → 14%MT SHASTA WILD LLC: $9k → 10%UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $35k → 12%INLAND NORTHWEST LAND CONSERV: $10k → 12%THE CONVERVATION FUND: $8k → 7%THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION: $10k → 9%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS: $23k → 10%Conservation Science Collabor: $8k → 12%WATERSHED RESTORATION COALITI: $6k → 16%CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENA: $7k → 18%MT SHASTA WILD LLC: $9k → 10%UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $35k → 12%SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $6k → 9%MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS: $15k → 10%CENTENNIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION: $11k → 12%UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY: $35k → 12%SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $6k → 9%RUBY VALLEY CONSERVATION DIS: $9k → 10%CENTENNIAL VALLEY ASSOCIATION: $8k → 12%SWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS: $6k → 9%RUBY VALLEY CONSERVATION DIS: $9k → 10%FIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST: $10k → 9%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.

Which US states your grants reach

WA
ID
MT
OR
WY
CA
UT
VA
NM
DC

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.

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.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$557k · 11 repeat orgs$246k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
18

Total granted

$557k
$174k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
+69%

Still filing today

55%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $72k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentFood & NutritionOther

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

  • WL
    WESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE
    4× · 2021–2024 · $238k · revenue +179%
  • MV
    MADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP
    3× · 2021–2023 · $66k · revenue +13%
  • TV
    THE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2017–2019 · $25k · revenue +150%

Funded once

  • WC
    WILLOW CREEK RANCH
    one grant, 2023 · $19k
  • BH
    BIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $14k · revenue -4%
  • PL
    PALOUSE LAND TRUST INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $11k · revenue +197%

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
Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership
Environment
2
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.

—
3
Washington Water Trust

Wwt's mission is to protect and restore water in rivers and streams across washington state. washington water trust restores and protects water in rivers and streams and promotes sustainable freshwater management in washington, and, more…

Environment
4
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
5
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
6
Grand Teton National Park Foundation

Grand Teton National Park Foundation (the Foundation) is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to partner with Grand Teton National Park to steward, protect, and enhance all that is special in the park. Budget limitations,…

Philanthropy
7
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.

—
8
Gallatin Wildlife Association

Promote research and actions to save wildlife.

Animals
9
Jackson Hole Wildlife Foundation

Jackson hole wildlife foundation advances wildlife conservation driven by science, collaboration, and a community of volunteers.

Animals
10
The Grand Canyon Trust Inc

The mission of the grand canyon trust is to safeguard the wonders of the grand canyon and the colorado plateau, while supporting the rights of its native peoples.

Environment
11
Wyoming Wilderness Association

The wyoming wilderness association works to protect wyoming's public wild lands to ensure a future of wild places for people and wildlife.

Animals
12
Responsible Land Use
—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Five Valleys Land Trust and the most unlike its peers is Centennial Valley Association Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 31 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%5%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%14%10–20yr16%52%20–35yr13%24%35–55yr16%5%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%2%<5yr14%0%5–10yr19%44%10–20yr16%31%20–35yr13%7%35–55yr16%17%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/28
the rest of the field
13%
240,396/1,819,537

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.

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. 21 of the 31 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
15/21
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

WESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE — $237,575 · EnvironmentWESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCEMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP — $65,512 · EnvironmentMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUPIDAHO COALITION OF LAND TRUSTS — $63,807 · EnvironmentIDAHO COALITION OF LAND TRUSTSCentennial Valley Association Inc — $19,417 · Environment+15 more — $154,808 · Environment+15 moreUTAH STATE UNIVERSITY — $105,000 · OtherUTAH STATE UNIVERSITYTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC — $25,000 · OtherTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INCWILLOW CREEK RANCH — $19,181 · OtherWILLOW CREEK RANCHMT SHASTA WILD LLC — $18,554 · OtherMT SHASTA WILD LLCRUBY VALLEY CONSERVATION DIS — $18,371 · OtherRUBY VALLEY CONSERVATION DISConservation Science Collabor — $18,043 · OtherConservation Science CollaborCONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI — $18,000 · OtherCONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAIROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT RANCHLANDS GROUP — $10,275 · OtherMONTANA ACCESS PROJECT LLC — $8,500 · Other+2 more — $12,564 · OtherWYOMING STOCK GROWERS LAND TRUST — $8,700 · Food & Nutrition
Environment$541,119Other$253,488Food & Nutrition$8,700

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 budgetWESTERN LANDOWNERS ALLIANCE — $237,575 over 4y, 3.7% of budgetMADISON VALLEY RANCHLANDS GROUP — $65,512 over 3y, 16% of budgetIDAHO COALITION OF LAND TRUSTS — $63,807 over 1y, 33% of budgetTHE VITAL GROUND FOUNDATION INC — $25,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCentennial Valley Association Inc — $19,417 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetSWAN VALLEY CONNECTIONS — $18,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetBIG HOLE WATERSHED COMMITTEE INC — $13,625 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetWATERSHED RESTORATION COALITION FOR THE — $13,422 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetPALOUSE LAND TRUST INC — $11,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetLAND TRUST ALLIANCE INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINLAND NORTHWEST LAND TRUST — $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetFIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST — $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTETON REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetWOOD RIVER LAND TRUST CO — $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBITTER ROOT LAND TRUST — $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetGALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST — $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION — $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND — $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSagebrush Steppe Land Trust Inc — $7,250 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMontana Association of Conservation Districts — $6,511 over 1y, 0.6% 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 …Blackfoot Challenge I…Cross Charitable Foun…National Fish and Wil…The Vital Ground Foun…American Farmland Tru…The Nature ConservancyPatagoniaorgThe Liz Claiborne & A…The High Stakes Found…The Steele-Reese Foun…
Land Trust Alliance IncDC23.9× affinity9 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Land Trust Alliance Inc · Heart of the Rockies Foundation · Blackfoot Challenge Inc · Cross Charitable Foundation Attn John R Clark · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Vital Ground Foundation Inc · American Farmland Trust · The Nature Conservancy · Patagoniaorg · The Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation · The High Stakes Foundation · The Steele-Reese Foundation Xxxxx1004

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 Initiative 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
    7report 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.

    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 31 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