· Public charity
Lathrop Gpm Foundation
Make grants to charitable organizations
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 11 grants below total $146,022 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $298,717 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $152,695 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 $10k5 grants · $39k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $107k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE FUND FOR LEGAL AID | $34,162 |
| MINNESOTA JUSTICE RESEARCH CENTER | $25,000 |
| GUTHRIE THEATER | $15,000 |
| MIDWEST INNOCENCE PROJECT | $12,260 |
| UMKC LAW FOUNDATION | $10,850 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| BET TZEDEK | $8,250 |
| MINNEAPOLIS PARKS FOUNDATION | $8,000 |
| NEW HOUSE | $8,000 |
| LEGALCORPS | $7,500 |
| SOCIAL SYMPHONY OF KANSAS CITY | $7,000 |
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 (FY22–22, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
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 +40% since the first grant, against +36% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $34k 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
- GTGUTHRIE THEATER FOUNDATION5× · 2020–2024 · $65k · revenue +93%
- TFTHE FUND FOR LEGAL AID2× · 2023–2024 · $56k · revenue +40%
- MIMIDWEST INNOCENCE PROJECT INC4× · 2020–2024 · $53k · revenue +89%
Funded once
- TFThe Foundation of the Federal Bar Associationone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -28%
- TLTHE LEGAL REVOLUTIONone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -45%
- MMMid MN Legal Aidone grant, 2023 · $11k
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 advance the success of women attorneys and strive for a just society.
To attract, recruit, advance, and retain attorneys of color in the twin cities through education and collaboration with member organizations.
The minnesota justice foundation creates opportunities for law students to engage in public interest and pro bono legal service and increases the capacity of legal organizations that serve the public interest.
To promote equal access to justice and improve the lives of low-income clients through quality legal assistance
The minnesota business partnership's mission is to maintain a high quality of life for all minnesotans by ensuring that the state's economy remains strong, globally competitive and its prospects for growth bright by working with elected…
MCF is a vibrant philanthropic community connecting, strengthening and mobilizing the power of philanthropy to advance prosperity and equity.
To develop and advocate for public policy that makes Minnesota's economy more prosperous and fair for all Minnesotans.
Our mission is to work with our communities to seek justice and promote racial equity for those to whom it has been historically denied. we do this through criminal defense, restorative justice, advocacy, and community education.
The minnesota state bar foundation mobilizes legal community philanthropy to achieve access to justice for all minnesotans.
To advance the safety, independence, and economic stability of those most affected by poverty, racism, and other structurally oppressive systems by increasing access to justice and working for systemic solutions.
As one of the most enduring civil rights institutions on the West Coast, we work to dismantle systems of oppression and racism, and build an equitable and just society.
Children's law center of minnesota promotes and protects the legal rights and well-being of children and youth through legal advocacy, educational outreach, and policy reform.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of Central Minnesota and the most unlike its peers is Feeding America. 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 37 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) — 8% of your grantees by number, and just 6% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% 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.
24 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. 24 of the 29 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 GUTHRIE THEATER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE FUND FOR LEGAL AID ↗
- Who funds MIDWEST INNOCENCE PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds The Advocates For Human Rights ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF CENTRAL MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA JUSTICE RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds LEGALCORPS ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC COUNSEL ↗
- Who funds The Foundation of the Federal Bar Association ↗
- Who funds THE LEGAL REVOLUTION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BET TZEDEK ↗
- Who funds GREAT NORTH INNOCENCE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds THE LAW FOUNDATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - KANSAS CITY ↗
- Who funds WANTON INJUSTICE LEGAL DETAIL ↗
- Who funds NEWHOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds Minneapolis Parks Foundation ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA LAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds SCRAPS KC INC ↗
- Who funds OPERATION LIBERATION ↗
- Who funds SAFE CONNECTIONS ↗
- Who funds VOLUNTEER LAWYERS NETWORK LTD ↗
- Who funds DC BAR PRO BONO CENTER ↗
- Who funds Feeding America ↗
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: Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · Fredrikson & Byron Foundation · Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd Found · Robins Kaplan Foundation · Pentair Foundation · The McKnight Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Faegre Drinker Foundation · The Dorsey & Whitney Foundation · Fr Bigelow Foundation · Pohlad Family 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 Lathrop Gpm 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.
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 Lathrop Gpm Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Lathrop Gpm 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.