Skip to content
Mark & Debi Rolfing Charitable Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Mark & Debi Rolfing Charitable Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$4k
Granted FY2022
4
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$1k
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, FY2019 to 2022.

Human Services$7kEducation$6kRecreation & Sports$3kYouth Development$2kHealth$2kFood & Nutrition$1kHousing & Shelter$1kCommunity Improvement$1kOther$0
02FY2022 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$119k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROTARY D5000 FOUNDATION$1,121
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$1,000
SACRED HEARTS SCHOOL$1,000
MALAMA PREGNANCY CENTER OF MAUI$500
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 (FY19–22, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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%CHILD BRIDGE: $1k → 18%CHILD BRIDGE: $1k → 18%MALAMA PREGNANCY CENTER OF MAUI: $500 → 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.

61%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14k · 4 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +159% since the first grant, against +138% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
8

Total granted

$14k
$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+159%
+138%

Still filing today

25%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 59% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentHealthHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • ML
    MARIA LANAKILA
    4× · 2019–2022 · $6k
  • RD
    ROTARY D5000 FOUNDATION
    2× · 2021–2022 · $3k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2019–2021 · $3k

Funded once

  • BA
    BIGFORK ACES
    one grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue -12%
  • KC
    KUMULANI CHAPEL
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
  • WM
    WEST MAUI IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +163%
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
Ho'ola Lahui Hawaii

To improve the health and well-being of our community.

Human Services
2
Waikiki Health

To provide high quality medical and social services that are affordable and accessible for everyone regardless of ability to pay.

Health
3
Waimanalo Health Center

Waimanalo health center is committed to providing the highest level of primary and preventive health services, with special attention to the needs of native hawaiians and the medically underserved, and improving the health and wellness of…

Health
4
Pacific Birth Collective Incorporated

Pacific birth collective is a community-based organization rooted in respect, inclusivity and care. our mission is expanding birth and wellness choices through education, support and advocacy for families and practitioners across hawaii.…

Health
5
Molokai Ohana Health Care Inc

To provide and promote accessible comprehensive individual and community health care to the people of molokai with respect and aloha.

Health
6
Lai Hauola

To preserve the immediate and long-term health and wellbeing of lahaina's diverse communities and precious natural resources.

Food & Nutrition
7
Family Promise of Hawaii

Family promise of hawai'i is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to transforming the lives of families with children in hawaii facing homelessness by providing housing, resources, and support.

Human Services
8
Maui Youth and Family Services Inc

Empowering youth and families challenged with behavioral health issues to become responsible, self-fulfilled and contributing members of the community.

—
9
Aloha Harvest

To rescue quality food to nourish and strengthen our community.

Food & Nutrition
10
Hawaii Alliance for Community-Based Economic Development

To encourage increased investment in sustainable and community-based approaches to economic development hacbed advances its mission to address, social, economic, and environmental justice in hawaii through community based economic…

Unclassified
11
Kealahou West Oahu

Providing comprehensive case management to families and individuals in need of becoming self sufficient. kealahou west oahu also provides shelter services to the unsheltered and sheltered population.

Housing & Shelter
12
Waikiki Community Center

9caring for the people of waikiki through quality programs and services.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Programs Hawaii; the most unlike its peers is Bigfork Aces. 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

9 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. 9 of the 15 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MARIA LANAKILA: $6,350 · OtherMARIA LANAKILAROTARY D5000 FOUNDATION: $3,410 · OtherROTARY D5000 FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $2,600 · OtherIndividual grant recipientKUMULANI CHAPEL: $1,000 · OtherKUMULANI CHAPELWEST MAUI IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION: $1,000 · OtherWEST MAUI IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+1 more: $500 · OtherCHILD BRIDGE INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesCHILD BRIDG…PREGNANCY & WELLNESS MAUI: $500 · Human ServicesPREGNANCY &…AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $1,000 · HealthBIGFORK ACES: $1,000 · Youth DevelopmentHALE MAHAOLU LAHAINA SURF INC: $1,000 · Housing & ShelterMAUI FOOD BANK INC: $1,000 · Food & NutritionOSHKOSH AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CORPORATION: $1,000 · Philanthropy
Other$16,860Human Services$2,500Health$1,000Youth Development$1,000Housing & Shelter$1,000Food & Nutrition$1,000Philanthropy$1,000

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 budgetCHILD BRIDGE INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBIGFORK ACES: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWEST MAUI IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetHALE MAHAOLU LAHAINA SURF INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMAUI FOOD BANK INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOSHKOSH AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CORPORATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPREGNANCY & WELLNESS MAUI: $500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFAMILY PROGRAMS HAWAII: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA9.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · 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 Mark & Debi Rolfing Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mark & Debi Rolfing Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    4report 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 Mark & Debi Rolfing Charitable Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Mark & Debi Rolfing Charitable 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 15 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mark & Debi Rolfing’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