· Private foundation
Margaret V Ping Foundation
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 FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k11 grants · $49k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YWCA | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL | $10,000 |
| SOFT LANDING MISSOULA | $10,000 |
| FAMILY SERVICE | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $7,000 |
| ANGELAS PIAZZA | $6,000 |
| MT ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER | $6,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| MOUNTAIN HOME MONTANA | $5,000 |
| GLOBAL VILLAGE FAIR TRADE | $4,500 |
| MSU-B YOUNG POETS PROGRAM | $4,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,000 |
| MSU-B UNITED CAMPUS MINISTRY | $2,000 |
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 (FY18–25, $120k) 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 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.
27 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 2 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, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- NPNORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL8× · 2018–2025 · $77k · revenue +66%
- MHMOUNTAIN HOME MONTANA INC8× · 2018–2025 · $57k · revenue +443%
- APANGELAS PIAZZA INC8× · 2018–2025 · $48k · revenue +63%
Funded once
- FPFAMILY PROMISEone grant, 2018 · $10k
- FSFAMILY SERVICE OPERATIONSone grant, 2022 · $10k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2018 · $9k
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.
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.
To create and sustain an optimal business climate, business prosperity and a strong montana economy through advocacy, education and collaboration, working to provide an empowered and educated workforce, reduce business growth obstacles,…
Missoula Electric Cooperative, Inc. strives to uphold a commitment to service excellence, while delivering safe, affordable and reliable electricty to its members.
Promotion and development of montana's construction industry.
Inform, educate & represent member interests
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…
Greater yellowstone coalition works with all people to protect the lands, waters, and wildlife of the greater yellowstone ecosystem, now and for future generations.
A partnership of nonprofit groups devoted to improving the quality of life throughout Montana.
To collectively serve as a catalyst for engagement and bonding of people to our wildlife and public lands in montana through a sense of place, education, access, research and stewardship.
Provide permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income families in the flathead valley and nw montana.
The montana conservation voters education fund educates, engages, and empowers all montanans to protect our clean air, clean water, public lands, and democracy.
Flathead land trust is dedicated to the conservation of northwest montana's land and water legacy through voluntary agreements with private land owners. flt's primary program service is private land conservation through voluntary…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (See) Inc and the most unlike its peers is Angelas Piazza Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 43 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 NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds MOUNTAIN HOME MONTANA INC ↗
- Who funds ANGELAS PIAZZA INC ↗
- Who funds HELPING HANDS INC ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENTREPRENEURS (SEE) INC ↗
- Who funds FAMILY SERVICE ↗
- Who funds Montana Environmental Information Center ↗
- Who funds MISSOULA AREA AGENCY ON AGING INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN - MONTANA ↗
- Who funds CROW LANGUAGE CONSORTIUM INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL FOREST FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds RED LODGE AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
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: First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Sample Foundation Inc · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Treacy Foundation · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 Margaret V Ping 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 Margaret V Ping Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Margaret V Ping 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.