Skip to content
Rangeland Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
9
States reached
$100k
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, FY2023 to 2024.

Animals$977kEnvironment$635kEducation$25k
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $122k
  • $50k–250k12 grants · $900k
$50,000
Median grant
9
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL$100,000
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION$100,000
NORTHERN ROCKIES CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE$100,000
LIVING WITH WOLVES$100,000
PREDATOR DEFENSE$75,000
TRAP FREE MONTANA$75,000
YELLOWSTONE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER$75,000
COLORADO NATURE LEAGUE$75,000
BOLD VISIONS CONSERVATION$50,000
RANGELAND WILD DBA WORKING CIRCLE$50,000
FOOTLOOSE MONTANA$50,000
KETTLE RANGE CONSERVATION GROUP$50,000
WINGS PROGRAMS INC$37,000
WESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE$25,000
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$25,000
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 (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 48% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%BOYD RANCH: $10k → 11%WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT: $75k → 7%INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE NETWORK: $50k → 8%BOLD VISIONS CONSERVATION: $50k → 9%YELLOWSTONE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER: $75k → 10%WESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE: $25k → 10%WOLVES OF THE ROCKIES: $75k → 11%RANGELAND WILD DBA WORKING CIRCLE: $50k → 11%PILOTS TO THE RESCUE: $25k → 20%PREDATOR DEFENSE: $100k → 15%COLORADO NATURE LEAGUE: $75k → 12%WOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL: $100k → 9%PROJECT GRIPH: $13k → 13%KETTLE RANGE CONSERVATION GROUP: $50k → 16%NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $100k → 6%NORTHERN ROCKIES CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE: $100k → 5%LIVING WITH WOLVES: $100k → 7%TRAP FREE MONTANA: $75k → 11%PREDATOR DEFENSE: $75k → 15%NORTHERN ROCKIES CONSERVATION COOPERATIVE: $100k → 5%TRAP FREE MONTANA: $75k → 11%WINGS PROGRAMS INC: $37k → 11%WINGS PROGRAM INC: $15k → 11%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
ID
MT
NY
OR
WY
CA
CO
VA
AZ
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.

41%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$677k · 5 repeat orgs$960k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
6

Total granted

$677k
$275k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
+22%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $685k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
AnimalsEnvironmentHealthCivil RightsEducationOther
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

  • NR
    Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative
    2× · 2023–2024 · $200k · revenue +14%
  • PD
    PREDATOR DEFENSE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $175k · revenue -44% · 43% of their budget
  • TF
    Trap Free Montana Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $150k · revenue -19% · 52% of their budget

Funded once

  • WO
    WOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC
    one grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue -71%
  • WW
    WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INC
    one grant, 2023 · $75k · revenue +22%
  • TI
    THE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE NETWORK INC
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue -19%
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
Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

To promote science-based wildlife management that fosters ecosystem health and dynamic equilibrium between species throughout the state of wyoming.

Animals
2
Gallatin Wildlife Association

Promote research and actions to save wildlife.

Animals
3
Wolfe Ranch Rescue
Animals
4
Native Ecosystems Council

Promote wildlife habitat

Environment
5
Wild Earth Society Incorporated

Wildlands Network works to reconnect, restore and rewild North America so that life-in all its diversity-can thrive.

Arts & Culture
6
Rangeland Wild

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…

Animals
7
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
8
Southwest Environmental Center

To promote and protect Wildlife

—
9
North American Wilderness Recovery

Conservation Education

Environment
10
Wildlands Defense

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…

Environment
11
Wolf Mountain Sanctuary Inc

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…

Animals
12
Rob & Bessie Welder Wildlife Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wyoming Untrapped Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 24 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
23/23
Grantees still filing
8/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PREDATOR DEFENSE: $175,000 · AnimalsPREDATOR DEFENSETrap Free Montana Inc: $150,000 · AnimalsTrap Free Montana IncWOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL: $100,000 · AnimalsWOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONALLIVING WITH WOLVES LTD: $100,000 · AnimalsLIVING WITH WOLVES LTDNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $100,000 · AnimalsNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONWOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC: $75,000 · AnimalsWOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INCFootloose Montana: $50,000 · AnimalsFootloose MontanaTHE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE NETWORK INC: $50,000 · AnimalsTHE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE NETWORK INC+3 more: $50,000 · Animals+3 moreBold Visions Conservation: $100,000 · EnvironmentBold Visions Conservatio…WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INC: $75,000 · EnvironmentWESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJE…COLORADO NATURE LEAGUE: $75,000 · EnvironmentCOLORADO NATURE LEAGUEKETTLE RANGE CONSERVATION GROUP: $50,000 · EnvironmentKETTLE RANGE CONSERVATIO…ADVOCATES FOR THE WEST INC: $25,000 · EnvironmentADVOCATES FOR THE WEST I…WESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE: $25,000 · EnvironmentWESTERN SUSTAINABILITY E…+1 more: $10,000 · EnvironmentNorthern Rockies Conservation Cooperative: $200,000 · OtherNorthern Rockies Conse…YELLOWSTONE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER: $75,000 · OtherYELLOWSTONE ECOLOGICAL…RANGELAND WILD DBA WORKING CIRCLE: $50,000 · OtherRANGELAND WILD DBA WOR…WINGS PROGRAMS INC: $52,000 · HealthCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25,000 · EducationWYOMING UNTRAPPED INC: $25,000 · Civil Rights
Animals$850,000Environment$360,000Other$325,000Health$52,000Education$25,000Civil Rights$25,000

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 budgetNorthern Rockies Conservation Cooperative: $200,000 over 2y, 9.9% of budgetPREDATOR DEFENSE: $175,000 over 2y, 43% of budgetTrap Free Montana Inc: $150,000 over 2y, 52% of budgetWOLF HAVEN INTERNATIONAL: $100,000 over 1y, 4.9% of budgetLIVING WITH WOLVES LTD: $100,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetBold Visions Conservation: $100,000 over 2y, 41% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOLVES OF THE ROCKIES INC: $75,000 over 1y, 21% of budgetYELLOWSTONE ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER: $75,000 over 1y, 64% of budgetWESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECTS INC: $75,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetCOLORADO NATURE LEAGUE: $75,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetWINGS PROGRAMS INC: $52,000 over 2y, 31% of budgetFootloose Montana: $50,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COEXISTENCE NETWORK INC: $50,000 over 1y, 6.8% of budgetCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetADVOCATES FOR THE WEST INC: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetPILOTS TO THE RESCUE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetWESTERN SUSTAINABILITY EXCHANGE: $25,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetWYOMING UNTRAPPED INC: $25,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetGrand Canyon Wolf Recovery Proj Inc: $12,500 over 1y, 13% 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.

Riverstyx FoundationPatagoniaorgThe Jodar Family Foun…Marin Community Found…National Philanthropi…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Riverstyx FoundationCA32.6× affinity13 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Rangeland Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rangeland Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 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.

    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 24 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 Rangeland’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