Skip to content
Mark and Cindy Fritz Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mark and Cindy Fritz Family Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$586k
Granted FY2024still arriving
22
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$358k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Community Improvement$806kPhilanthropy$501kEducation$371kHuman Services$148kRecreation & Sports$93kPublic Benefit$75kArts & Culture$50kHealth$43kOther$0
02FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k15 grants · $27k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $61k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $140k
  • $250k+1 grant · $358k
$2,500
Median grant
6
States reached
$5.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Project 412$358,300
FM Area Foundation$75,000
Detroit Lakes High School$65,000
Individual grant recipient$20,000
Hospice of the Red River Valley$20,000
Detroit Mountain Recreation Area$10,500
Emerging Prairie$10,000
Lakes Crisis & Resource Center$4,000
Detroit Lakes Dollars for Scholars$3,000
Boys and Girls Club of Detroit Lakes$2,500
Cues Fund$2,500
Lakes Area Chorale$2,500
Art Council of Big Sky$2,500
Young Life Charity$2,400
North Dakota Skateboarding Association$1,250
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 (FY20–24, $184k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, 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%Hospice of the Red River Valley: $20k → 12%Detroit Lakes Community and Cultural Center: $52k → 10%Hospice of the Red River Valley: $20k → 12%Detroit Lakes Community and Cultural Center: $38k → 10%Detroit Lakes Community and Cultural Center: $25k → 10%Detroit Lakes Community and Cultural Center: $25k → 10%Lakes Crisis and Resource Center: $2k → 10%Lakes Crisis and Resource Center: $2k → 10%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 19 repeat orgs$78k to everyone else

19 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
6

Total granted

$1.5M
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
+72%

Still filing today

53%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $33k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsReligionPhilanthropyHealthOther
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

  • P4
    PROJECT 412
    3× · 2022–2024 · $746k · revenue +374% · 50% of their budget
  • DI
    DLCCC INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $140k · revenue +71%
  • HO
    Hospice of the Red River Valley
    2× · 2022–2024 · $40k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • CD
    COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FUND OF CDSgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue ×23 · 33% of their budget
  • CS
    CUES School
    one grant, 2020 · $13k
  • EH
    ESSENTIA HEALTHgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $3k · revenue +72%
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
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust
—
2
Nd Natural Resources Conservation Trust

To promote the conservation of natural resources in the state of north dakota

Environment
3
Sioux Falls Environmental Access Inc
—
4
Rock County Historical Society

To preserve the history of rock county, minnesota

—
5
North Dakota News Cooperative
Arts & Culture
6
Lake Superior Community Partnership Inc

To stimulate and sustain a vibrant regional economy by facilitating economic growth and prosperity.

—
7
St Cloud Downtown Alliance Foundation

Enhancing and strengthening our community and our regional core.

—
8
Beaverhead Trails Coalition

Enhancement and development of trails on public lands in Beaverhead County

Environment
9
Dickinson Area Chamber of Commerce

The dickinson area chamber of commerce will provide leadership to promote a progressive business environment.

—
10
Evolve Nd

To promote, build, educate, and help entrepreneurial, startup, and creative communities in grand forks, north dakota and the surrounding region

Community Improvement
11
Duluth Cross Country Ski Club

Promote health through skiing

Recreation & Sports
12
Friends of the Middle Border

Museum/educational center

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fargo-Moorhead Area Foundation Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Impact Foundation. 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

19 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. 19 of the 36 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
11/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PROJECT 412: $745,800 · Community ImprovementPROJECT 412EMERGING PRAIRIE: $30,000 · Community ImprovementDetroit Lakes High School: $320,000 · OtherDetroit Lakes High SchoolCITY OF DETROIT LAKES: $74,983 · OtherCITY OF DETROIT LAKESBECKER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $45,000 · OtherBECKER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCI…COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FUND OF CDS: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · Other+18 more: $71,883 · Other+18 moreFARGO-MOORHEAD AREA FOUNDATION CORPORATION: $500,000 · PhilanthropyFARGO-MOORHEAD AREA FOUNDA…+2 more: $6,000 · PhilanthropyDLCCC INC: $139,500 · Human ServicesDLCCC INCHospice of the Red River Valley: $40,000 · Human ServicesHospice o…LAKES CRISIS AND RESOURCE CENTER: $8,116 · Human ServicesDETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INC: $86,207 · Recreation & Sports+1 more: $2,500 · Recreation & SportsMOONLIGHT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $21,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF TAMARAC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE INC: $1,029 · EnvironmentCUES FUND: $7,500 · Religion
Community Improvement$775,800Other$556,866Philanthropy$506,000Human Services$187,616Recreation & Sports$88,707Environment$22,029Religion$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPROJECT 412: $745,800 over 3y, 50% of budgetFARGO-MOORHEAD AREA FOUNDATION CORPORATION: $500,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetDLCCC INC: $139,500 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetDETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INC: $86,207 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetBECKER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $45,000 over 3y, 3.6% of budgetHospice of the Red River Valley: $40,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetEMERGING PRAIRIE: $30,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCOOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FUND OF CDS: $25,000 over 1y, 33% of budgetMOONLIGHT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $21,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetLAKES CRISIS AND RESOURCE CENTER: $8,116 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCUES FUND: $7,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWEST CENTRAL INITIATIVE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetESSENTIA HEALTH: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DETROIT LAKES: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDETROIT LAKES YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED: $2,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetARTS COUNCIL OF BIG SKY: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIDAHO WILD SHEEP FOUNDATION INC: $2,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetFRIENDS OF TAMARAC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE INC: $1,029 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetIMPACT FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 1.0% 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.

  • Who funds PROJECT 412 ↗
  • Who funds FARGO-MOORHEAD AREA FOUNDATION CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds DLCCC INC ↗
  • Who funds DETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INC ↗
  • Who funds BECKER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Hospice of the Red River Valley ↗
  • Who funds EMERGING PRAIRIE ↗
  • Who funds COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FUND OF CDS ↗
  • Who funds MOONLIGHT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LAKES CRISIS AND RESOURCE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CUES FUND ↗
  • Who funds WEST CENTRAL INITIATIVE ↗
  • Who funds ESSENTIA HEALTH ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DETROIT LAKES ↗
  • Who funds DETROIT LAKES YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds ARTS COUNCIL OF BIG SKY ↗
  • Who funds IDAHO WILD SHEEP FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF TAMARAC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE INC ↗
  • Who funds IMPACT FOUNDATION ↗

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.

Fargo-Moorhead Area F…West Central Initiati…St Mary's Regional He…The Barry FoundationSanford Group ReturnOtto Bremer TrustSje Rhombus FoundationCarl and Aune Lind Fa…Dakota Medical Founda…Offutt Family Foundat…Mightycause Charitabl…Edward Jones Foundati…
Fargo-Moorhead Area Foundation CorporationND28.1× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fargo-Moorhead Area Foundation Corporation · West Central Initiative · St Mary's Regional Health Center · The Barry Foundation · Sanford Group Return · Otto Bremer Trust · Sje Rhombus Foundation · Carl and Aune Lind Family Foundation · Dakota Medical Foundation · Offutt Family Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Edward Jones 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 Mark and Cindy Fritz Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mark and Cindy Fritz Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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.

    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 36 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mark and Cindy Fritz Family’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