· Private foundation
Rgf Family Fund
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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND | $3,900 |
| SURGICAL EYE EXPEDITIONS INTERNATIONAL | $2,600 |
| THE GREATER BOSTON FOOD BANK | $2,600 |
| YAMPA VALLEY SUSTAINABILITY COUNCIL | $2,600 |
| THE DELORES PROJECT | $2,600 |
| THE RETREAT | $2,600 |
| THE ABRAHAM FOUNDATION | $2,600 |
| THE CENTER FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PHYSICAL CHALLENGES | $2,000 |
| TULSA BALLET | $2,000 |
| FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES | $2,000 |
| KCRW | $2,000 |
| THE ARTS ALLIANCE OF TULSA | $1,500 |
| THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL | $1,500 |
| LAIST (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RADIO) | $1,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $1,500 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 82% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 +58% since the first grant, against +55% for the ones you funded once.
22 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 10 since wound down; 6 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, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k 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
- FCFamily & Childrens Services Inc5× · 2017–2024 · $11k · revenue +221%
THE CENTER FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PHYSICAL CHALLENGES6× · 2017–2024 · $10k · revenue +28%- TBTULSA BALLET THEATRE INC5× · 2017–2024 · $10k · revenue +73%
Funded once
- COCity of Tulsaone grant, 2020 · $38k
- MAMUSEUM ASSOCIATESgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +89%
- TCTHE CORAL REEF ALLIANCEgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $2k · revenue +48%
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.
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
See schedule oustelecom exists to ensure members can compete, grow and thrive to build a world where families, enterprises and communities are connected through the power of broadband.our member companies have committed a considerable…
To promote public health, safety, and welfare through the improvement of the quality and quantity of drinking water and the development and furtherance of understanding of the problems relating thereto.
The tulsa regional chamber transforms the tulsa region by attracting and retaining employers, talent and tourism for long-term prosperity.
Founded in 1889, the national association of regulatory utility commisioners (naruc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the state public service commisions who regulate the utilities that provide essential services such…
To effectively and efficiently mitigate risks to the reliability and security of the western interconnection's bulk power system.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
To provide meaningful access to high quality, civil legal services in the pursuit of justice for as many low income persons and members of vulnerable populations throughout colorado as possible.
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Aspen Institute Inc and the most unlike its peers is American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 39 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
48 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. 48 of the 58 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 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND INC ↗
- Who funds Family & Childrens Services Inc ↗
- Who funds THE CENTER FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH PHYSICAL CHALLENGES ↗
- Who funds TULSA BALLET THEATRE INC ↗
- Who funds University of Chicago ↗
- Who funds SURGICAL EYE EXPEDITIONS INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds TULSA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds GREATER BOSTON FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds MINDS MATTER OF NYC INC ↗
- Who funds RED DOOR COMMUNITY INC ↗
- Who funds YAMPA VALLEY SUSTAINABILITY COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds THE ASPEN INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Colorado Outdoor Education Center Inc ↗
- Who funds DENVER DUMB FRIENDS LEAGUE ↗
- Who funds HOLLYWOOD FOOD COALITION ↗
- Who funds RAINFOREST FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ARTS ALLIANCE TULSA INC ↗
- Who funds The Abraham Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE DELORES PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Retreat Inc ↗
- Who funds MUSEUM ASSOCIATES ↗
- Who funds PRO PUBLICA INC ↗
- Who funds THE CORAL REEF ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds RIVER PARKS AUTHORITY ↗
- Who funds The University of Tulsa ↗
- Who funds GIRL SCOUTS OF EASTERN OKLAHOMA INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RADIO ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB ↗
- Who funds GRAMEEN FOUNDATION USA ↗
- Who funds MUSICARES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER ↗
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: The Anne and Henry Zarrow Foundation · The Gelvin Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · Mervin Bovaird Foundation · Ralph and Frances McGill Foundation the Trust Company of Oklahoma · The Sharna and Irvin Frank Foundation · One Gas Foundation Inc · Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation · Zink Family Foundation · The Oxley Foundation · Sanford P & Irene F Burnstein Foundation Irene F Burnstein Co-Trustee · Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family 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 Rgf Family Fund 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Greater Boston Food Bank Inc — 22% of income from government
- Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma Inc — 13% of income from government
- Tulsa Community Foundation — 11% of income from government
- The University of Tulsa — 5% of income from government
- The Philbrook Museum of Art Inc — 4% of income from government
- Artists for Humanity Inc — 2% of income from government
- Family & Childrens Services Inc — 1% of income from government
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.