· Private foundation
Robert Hoag Rawlings Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k36 grants · $148k
- $10k–50k28 grants · $446k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $570k
- $250k+1 grant · $544k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COLORADO STATE UNIV-PUEBLO FOUNDATION | $544,000 |
| LEONARDO DA VINCI MUSEUM OF NORTH AMERICA | $200,000 |
| PUEBLO CITY COUNTY LIBRARY | $150,000 |
| COLORADO STATE FAIR FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| ARKANSAS VALLEY HEALTH FOUNDATION | $70,000 |
| SANGRE DE CRISTO COMMUNITY CARE | $50,000 |
| CARE & SHARE FOOD BANK | $30,000 |
| COTTONWOOD RIDGE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY | $29,000 |
| CITY OF MONTE VISTA | $27,000 |
| BUENA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY | $25,000 |
| PUEBLO CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER | $25,000 |
| SPANISH PEAKS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| PUEBLO COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY | $20,000 |
| ELEVATEHER | $20,000 |
| NATURE & WILDLIFE DISCOVERY CENTER | $20,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY20–25, $530k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% 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.
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 +6% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
74 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2025, 36 since wound down; 32 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $540k 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
- CSCOLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY- PUEBLO FOUNDATION6× · 2020–2025 · $1.7M · revenue +8%
- PZPUEBLO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY2× · 2023–2025 · $301k · revenue +5%
- PCPueblo Community College Foundation6× · 2020–2025 · $153k · revenue +38%
Funded once
- PMPUEBLO MEDAL OF HONOR FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $75k
- PHPARKVIEW HEALTH SYSTEM INCgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $60k · revenue +36%
- SCSOUTH CENTRAL COLORADO SENIORS INCone grant, 2023 · $55k · revenue -50%
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.
The agency is a conservation Center near Pueblo, CO, where land and people can provide unique experiences in education, conservation and recreation that inspire responsible environmental stewardship.
To assist member counties with economic development and assist with other loan programs.
The Center for Nonprofit Excellence strengthens Southern Colorado's nonprofit sector through leadership and resource development, advocacy and collaboration. Together, with our partners, we are co-creating a vibrant community in the Pikes…
To protect and enhance agricultural land, wildlife habitat and scenic lands in western colorado to benefit the community at large, enrich lives, and provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for future generations.
San juan resource conservation and development council, inc.'s mission is to protect and improve the natural, cultural, historic and economic resources of the eight county area of southwest colorado.
To unite, elevate and empower colorado's conservation community to protect the lands and waters that define our state.
To develop and increase charitable giving that connects donors to community needs in Southwest Colorado and to support the nonprofit sector through granting and educational opportunities.
To empower visitors and locals to explore, learn about and protect the spectacular public lands of Southwest Colorado.
The costilla county economic development council was founded to organize develop and promote educational, social, scientific, and economic benfits to residents of costilla county colorado.
Colorado Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau's, now doing business as Visit Colorado Springs (VCOS), primary exempt purpose is promotion of the Pikes Peak Region. VCOS is designed to stimulate the visitor industry in the Pikes Peak…
The Center brings together mission-focused, nonpolitical organizations working at the confluence of land and water science, education, and stewardship to magnify our impact and ensure the longevity of our natural resources for future…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Energy Resource Center and the most unlike its peers is Florence Architectural and Cultural Traditions. 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 25 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 23% startups (under 5 years old) — 9% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
128 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 128 of the 237 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY- PUEBLO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SANGRE DE CRISTO ARTS & CONFERENCE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds PUEBLO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds SANGRE DE CRISTO HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE CARE ↗
- Who funds Pueblo Community College Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE COLORADO STATE FAIR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J PALMER PARKS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATURE AND WILDLIFE DISCOVERY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Care and Share Inc ↗
- Who funds PARKVIEW HEALTH SYSTEM INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CENTRAL COLORADO SENIORS INC ↗
- Who funds Villa Bella Expeditionary School ↗
- Who funds Pueblo Cooperative Care Center ↗
- Who funds CROW-LUTHER CULTURAL EVENTS CENTER ↗
- Who funds DORCAS CIRCLE ↗
- Who funds LA PUENTE HOME INC ↗
- Who funds CREEDE REPERTORY THEATRE ↗
- Who funds BENT COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR AMERICAN VALUES ↗
- Who funds POSADA ↗
- Who funds elevateHER ↗
- Who funds Mariposa Center for Safety ↗
- Who funds ADAMS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds YOUTH CLUB OF TRINIDAD INC ↗
- Who funds PUEBLO CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds SPANISH PEAKS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SAN LUIS VALLEY LOCAL FOODS COALITION ↗
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: El Pomar Foundation · The Colorado Health Foundation · Anschutz Family Foundation · Southern Colorado Community Foundat · Caring for Colorado Centennial Fund · The Denver Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · The Colorado Trust · Daniels Fund · United Way of Pueblo County Colorado Inc · Gates Family Foundation · Caring for Colorado 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 Robert Hoag Rawlings 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 Robert Hoag Rawlings Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Robert Hoag Rawlings 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.