· Private foundation
Rangeland 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2023–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k6 grants · $122k
- $50k–250k12 grants · $900k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| WOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL | $100,000 |
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION | $100,000 |
| LIVING WITH WOLVES | $100,000 |
| NORTHERN ROCKIES CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE | $100,000 |
| COLORADO NATURE LEAGUE | $75,000 |
| PREDATOR DEFENSE | $75,000 |
| TRAP FREE MONTANA | $75,000 |
| YELLOWSTONE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER | $75,000 |
| KETTLE RANGE CONSERVATION GROUP | $50,000 |
| FOOTLOOSE MONTANA | $50,000 |
| BOLD VISIONS CONSERVATION | $50,000 |
| RANGELAND WILD DBA WORKING CIRCLE | $50,000 |
| WINGS PROGRAMS INC | $37,000 |
| WESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE | $25,000 |
| COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 48% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +14% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $685k 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
- NRNorthern Rockies Conservation Cooperative2× · 2023–2024 · $200k · revenue +14%
- PDPREDATOR DEFENSE2× · 2023–2024 · $175k · revenue -44% · 43% of their budget
- TFTrap Free Montana Inc2× · 2023–2024 · $150k · revenue -19% · 52% of their budget
Funded once
- WWWESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INCone grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue +12%
- WOWOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INCone grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue -71%
- TITHE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE NETWORK INCone grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue -19%
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.
To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.
Promote research and actions to save wildlife.
Promote wildlife habitat
Wildlands Network works to reconnect, restore and rewild North America so that life-in all its diversity-can thrive.
Rangeland wild is dedicated to ensuring wolves, livestock, and people can successfully coexist and thrive on shared landslong-term. we envision resilient ranch operations that support healthy and ecologically diverse wild-working…
To promote and protect Wildlife
Conservation Education
Wildlands defense is dedicated to protecting and improving the ecological and aesthetic qualities of the wildlands and wildlife communities of the western united states for present and future generations. wld does so by fostering the…
OUR MISSION IS TO SAVE THE WOLVES. Wolf Mountain Sanctuary is a nonprofit 501c3 volunteer educational organization dedicated to preservation. The wolf is one the most wrongly maligned and hated creatures since time immortal. People…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wyoming Untrapped Inc and the most unlike its peers is Kettle Range Conservation Group. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
23 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. 23 of the 24 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 Rockies Conservation Cooperative ↗
- Who funds PREDATOR DEFENSE ↗
- Who funds Trap Free Montana Inc ↗
- Who funds WOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds LIVING WITH WOLVES LTD ↗
- Who funds Bold Visions Conservation ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds COLORADO NATURE LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INC ↗
- Who funds WOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC ↗
- Who funds YELLOWSTONE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER ↗
- Who funds WINGS PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds THE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds Footloose Montana ↗
- Who funds KETTLE RANGE CONSERVATION GROUP ↗
- Who funds ADVOCATES FOR THE WEST INC ↗
- Who funds WYOMING UNTRAPPED INC ↗
- Who funds COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PILOTS TO THE RESCUE INC ↗
- Who funds WESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE ↗
- Who funds Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Proj Inc ↗
- Who funds Project Griph ↗
- Who funds BOYD RANCH ↗
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: Riverstyx Foundation · Patagoniaorg · The Jodar Family Foundation · Marin Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Rangeland 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 Rangeland Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Rangeland 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.