Skip to content
Mark and Maura Rampolla Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Mark and Maura Rampolla Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$31k
Granted FY2018
10
Grants FY2018
5
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Mark and Maura Rampolla Foundation’s FY2020 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2020 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2018, the last year Mark and Maura Rampolla Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 8 organizations, $31k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

7
’17
8
’18
2
’19
0
’20

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2020.

Philanthropy$340kYouth Development$25kEducation$24kHealth$11kRecreation & Sports$10kArts & Culture$4kPublic Safety & Disaster$2kCommunity Improvement$1k
02FY2018 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k9 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$2,500
Median grant
5
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES$10,000
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL$5,000
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY$5,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES$3,000
SOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS LOS ANGELES INC$2,500
INNER-CITY ARTS$2,000
GRAMEEN AMERICA INC$1,000
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES INC$1,000
INNER-CITY ARTS$1,000
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $339k → 16%HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $10k → 14%GRAMEEN AMERICA INC: $1k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF NC CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDAT: $5k → 13%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: $5k → 14%CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES INC: $1k → 19%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $430 → 16%HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $10k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $5k → 13%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: $5k → 14%CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES INC: $1k → 19%SOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS LOS ANGELES INC: $3k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $5k → 13%HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $5k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $5k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $500 → 14%UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $500 → 14%INNER-CITY ARTS: $2k → 14%INNER-CITY ARTS: $1k → 14%INNER-CITY ARTS: $1k → 14%PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $3k → 14%PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $3k → 14%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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$62k · 6 repeat orgs$14k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +92% since the first grant, against +46% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call). Read against FY2018, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$62k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+92%
+46%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 67% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
EducationYouth DevelopmentRecreation & SportsHealthArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES
    3× · 2017–2019 · $25k · revenue +175%
  • Northwestern University
    2× · 2017–2018 · $10k · revenue +41%
  • PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES
    2× · 2017–2018 · $6k · revenue +92%

Funded once

  • MU
    Marquette Universitygraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +46%
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
University of Miami

See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.

Education
2
Southern California University of Health Sciences

The mission of southern california university of health sciences (scu) is to educate students as competent, caring and successful practitioners of integrative healthcare. the university is committed to providing excellence in academics,…

Education
3
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
4
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
5
University of the Pacific

To provide a superior, student-centered learning experience integrating liberal arts and professional education and preparing individuals for lasting achievement and responsible leadership in their careers and communities.

Education
6
New York University

Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.

Education
7
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

Stanford university is one of a select group of american universities that have achieved eminence in both undergraduate and graduate education and research - cont'd sch o.

Education
8
Golden Gate University

Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…

Education
9
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
10
Drexel University

Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…

Education
11
Western New England University

Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…

Education
12
DePauw University

Depauw university develops leaders the world needs through an uncommon commitment to the liberal arts. depauw's diverse and inclusive learning and living experience, distinctive in its rigorous intellectual engagement and its global and…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Social Justice Partners Los Angeles; the most unlike its peers is Marquette University. 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
10/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $339,736 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND+1 more: $1,000 · Community ImprovementHOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $25,000 · Youth DevelopmentUNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $15,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · OtherCATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES: $2,000 · OtherNorthwestern University: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsMarquette University: $5,000 · EducationSOCIAL JUSTICE PARTNERS LOS ANGELES: $2,500 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $1,000 · EducationPLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $6,000 · HealthINNER-CITY ARTS: $4,000 · Arts & Culture
Community Improvement$340,736Youth Development$25,000Other$22,000Recreation & Sports$10,000Education$8,500Health$6,000Arts & Culture$4,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $339,736 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $25,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetNorthwestern University: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMarquette University: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINNER-CITY ARTS: $4,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSOCIAL JUSTICE PARTNERS LOS ANGELES: $2,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetGRAMEEN AMERICA INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $1,000 over 2y, 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Mark and Maura Rampolla Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mark and Maura Rampolla Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 and Maura Rampolla Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Mark and Maura Rampolla 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2023) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2018, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mark and Maura Rampolla’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