Skip to content
Maple Valley Rotary Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Maple Valley Rotary Foundation

Conduct fundraising to support local projects, youth services, and international programs in association with Rotary District and Rotarly International.

$545k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$65kEducation$50kPublic Safety & Disaster$45kFood & Nutrition$37kYouth Development$16kPublic Benefit$10kEmployment$9k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $37,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $544,633 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $507,633 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
$6,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$355k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Valley Medical Center$25,000
Valley Guys and Girls$6,000
Green River College Foundation$6,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $16k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%Maple Valley Community Center: $16k → 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.
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

38%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$89k · 3 repeat orgs$142k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +4% since the first grant, against -18% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$89k
$111k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+4%
-18%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 16% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationPublic Safety & DisasterHealthHuman ServicesPublic BenefitPhilanthropyOther
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

  • MV
    MAPLE VALLEY FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
    4× · 2020–2023 · $37k · revenue +4%
  • TS
    TAHOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT
    2× · 2022–2023 · $34k
  • GR
    Green River College Foundation
    3× · 2023–2025 · $18k · revenue -13%

Funded once

  • TS
    THE SOUP LADIES
    one grant, 2019 · $45k · revenue -24%
  • GM
    GREATER MAPLE VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $16k · revenue +53%
  • RC
    Rotary Club of Covington Foundation
    one grant, 2024 · $13k · revenue -18%
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
Mount Vernon Rotary Club Foundation

Community service

Philanthropy
2
Maple Valley Rotary Foundation

Conduct fundraising to support local projects, youth services, and international programs in association with Rotary District and Rotarly International.

Community Improvement
3
The Rotary Club of Snoqualmie Valley

Service and funding to various organizations throughout our community and worldwide.

Human Services
4
Green Valley Rotary Club Foundation Inc
—
5
Columbia Valley Daybreak Rotary

Columbia Valley Daybreak Rotary Club is a service organization formed by business and professional leaders within the Tri-Cities, Washington.

—
6
Valley Rotary Charitable Association
—
7
Rotary Club of Great Falls Virginia Foundation Inc

Rotary club foundation focused on supporting local, national and international causes that our members value.

Philanthropy
8
Colville Rotary Charitable Foundation

The mission of Colville Rotary Charitable Foundation is to use passion, energy, and intellegence to take action on sustainable projects including literacy, peace, hunger and health in our community and internationally.

Philanthropy
9
Valley of the Moon Rotary Foundation

The Valley of the Moon Rotary Foundation was established by the Rotary Club of the Valley of the Moon to enhance fundraising in support of the Club's charitable activities in the International, Community and Vocation Avenues of Services.

Philanthropy
10
The Veterans & First Responders Board of Sw Wa

We provide food, clothing, special projects and gifts to bereaved of vets and first responders as well as to VFW projects

—
11
Great Valley School District Education Foundation

To enrich the total student experience in gvsd

Philanthropy
12
Granville Coop Volunteer Fire Department

Volunteer Fire Department

Public Safety & Disaster
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greater Maple Valley Community Center; the most unlike its peers is Equipping Restoring and Multiplying Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 12 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MAPLE VALLEY FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICES: $36,500 · OtherMAPLE VALLEY FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICESTAHOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT: $34,262 · OtherTAHOMA SCHOOL DISTRICTPUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT 1 OF KING COUNTY: $25,000 · OtherPUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT 1 OF KING COUNTYTHE SOUP LADIES: $45,344 · Public Safety & DisasterTHE SOUP LADIESGreen River College Foundation: $18,000 · EducationGreen River Colleg…THE IDEA PROJECT: $10,442 · EducationTHE IDEA PROJECTTHE CHILDREN'S READING FOUNDATION: $8,800 · EducationTHE CHILDREN'S REA…GREATER MAPLE VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER: $15,600 · Human ServicesRotary Club of Covington Foundation: $12,550 · PhilanthropyGREATER MAPLE VALLEY VETERANS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $9,533 · Public BenefitEquipping Restoring and Multiplying Inc: $8,965 · ReligionVALLEY GIRLS & GUYS: $6,000 · Health
Other$95,762Public Safety & Disaster$45,344Education$37,242Human Services$15,600Philanthropy$12,550Public Benefit$9,533Religion$8,965Health$6,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMAPLE VALLEY FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICES: $36,500 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetGreen River College Foundation: $18,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetGREATER MAPLE VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER: $15,600 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetRotary Club of Covington Foundation: $12,550 over 1y, 13% of budgetTHE IDEA PROJECT: $10,442 over 1y, 19% of budgetEquipping Restoring and Multiplying Inc: $8,965 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S READING FOUNDATION: $8,800 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

Seattle FoundationNetwork for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Seattle FoundationWA12.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Maple Valley Rotary Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Maple Valley Rotary Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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 Maple Valley Rotary Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Maple Valley Rotary 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 12 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Maple Valley Rotary’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