· Public charity
Roc USA LLC
Roc usa supports homeowners in manufactured home communities to achieve affordable and environmentally sustainable self-governing cooperatives.
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.
The 10 grants below total $837,952 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $859,586 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $21,634 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $73k
- $250k+1 grant · $750k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ROYAL OAKS COOPERATIVE INC | $750,000 |
| THISTLE | $12,006 |
| COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE | $11,267 |
| NORTHWEST COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CENTER | $10,000 |
| CASA OF OREGON | $10,000 |
| NORTCOUNTRY COOPERATIVE FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| LEAP HOUSING INC | $10,000 |
| NEIGHBORWORKS MONTANA | $10,000 |
| NH COMMUNITY LOAN FUND | $9,485 |
| CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT | $5,194 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 92% of your 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 +237% since the first grant, against +6% for the ones you funded once.
10 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 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, 9% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $760k 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
- CCCALIFORNIA CENTER FOR COOPERATION DEVELOPMENT3× · 2020–2024 · $275k · revenue +47%
- NCNORTHCOUNTRY COOPERATIVE FOUNDATION4× · 2017–2024 · $185k · revenue +340% · 34% of their budget
- LCLEAP CHARITIES INC4× · 2020–2024 · $125k · revenue +237%
Funded once
- CNCOOPERATIVA NUEVA UNIONone grant, 2021 · $1.0M
- NMNEIGHBORWORKS MONTANAone grant, 2020 · $180k
- CHCommunity Housing Expansion of Austinone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue -40%
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.
Mission: to create economically diverse neighborhoods filled with financially empowered citizens and housing for all.vision: all chattanoogans can afford a safe place in a strong neighborhood to call home. belief: we believe the future of…
To provide an economic model that allows people who must rent to build financial security while staying rooted in their homes and communities.
Development of affordable housing
The California Coalition for Rural Housing (CCRH) advocates for a thriving rural California by expanding affordable housing opportunitiies for rural, Tribal and farmworker communities. Founded in 1976, CCRH is one of the nation's oldest…
Community based housing program designed to stabilize neighborhoods mainly through loans to home owners unable to obtain alternative financing and construction and rehabilitation of housing, related services include technical assistance,…
The mission of cooperation vermont community land trust is to reclaim the commons.
The community development corporation of utah (cdcu) helps our community thrive by empowering people on their path toward financial security, housing stability, and access to affordable homes.we achieve this by:1. increasing financial…
The Door County Housing Partnership is creating a stable supply of permanently affordable housing for year-round residents to maintain the character, vibrancy, and diversity of the Door County community. Door County has an affordable…
Cape Fear Community Land Trust (CFCLT) exists to sustain vibrant, diverse communities by creating housing opportunities for working families. Our vision is a region filled with vibrant, holistic, and economically diverse communities with…
EcoThrive Housing provides pathways to home ownership by co-creating beautiful, affordable, sustainable villages with local communities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Montana Homeownership Network Inc and the most unlike its peers is All Parks Alliance for Change. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 23 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 CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR COOPERATION DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds NORTHCOUNTRY COOPERATIVE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LEAP CHARITIES INC ↗
- Who funds Community Housing Expansion of Austin ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds ALL PARKS ALLIANCE FOR CHANGE ↗
- Who funds Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services DBA Neighborworks Salt Lake ↗
- Who funds Carolina Common Enterprise ↗
- Who funds Thistle Community Housing ↗
- Who funds PATHSTONE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NEW HAMPSHIRE COMMUNITY LOAN FUND INC ↗
- Who funds MONTANA HOMEOWNERSHIP NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CENTER ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY AND SHELTER ASSISTANCE CORP ↗
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: Enterprise Community Partners Inc · Cooperative Development Foundation · Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation · Wells Fargo Foundation · 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 Roc USA LLC 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.
- Cooperative Development Institute Inc — 58% of income from government
- Community and Shelter Assistance Corp — 5% of income from government
- National Consumer Law Center 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.