Skip to content
Roger & Katherine Flahive Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Roger & Katherine Flahive Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$123k
Granted FY2023
12
Grants FY2023
11
States reached
$21k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2023.

International$118kHealth$80kEducation$35kEnvironment$15kHuman Services$8kAnimals$2kRecreation & Sports$1k
02FY2023 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k7 grants · $27k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $96k
$7,500
Median grant
11
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Bridge2Rwanda Inc$21,000
Kakenya Center for Excellence$20,000
Village Health Partnership$20,000
Worldwide Fistula Fund$20,000
Madina Village School$15,000
Sky is Not Limited$7,500
Bulamu Healthcare$7,500
Gotta Have Hope Inc$5,000
Wells Mountain Initiative$5,000
Wild Sheep Foundation$500
Safari Club Intl Foundation$500
Colorado Trail Foundation$500
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 (FY22–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 58% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Safari Club Intl Foundation: $500 → 15%Wild Sheep Foundation: $500 → 10%Bulamu Healthcare: $8k → 8%Sky is Not Limited: $8k → 11%Bridge2Rwanda Inc: $21k → 17%Gotta Have Hope Inc: $8k → 5%Colorado Trail Foundation: $500 → 7%Village Health Partnership: $20k → 12%Worldwide Fistula Fund: $20k → 14%Six Degrees of Seperation: $8k → 6%Kakenya Center for Excellence: $20k → 7%Wells Mountain Initiative: $13k → 9%Safari Club Intl Foundation: $500 → 15%Wild Sheep Foundation: $500 → 10%Bulamu Healthcare: $8k → 8%Sky is Not Limited: $8k → 11%Bridge2Rwanda Inc: $11k → 17%Gotta Have Hope Inc: $5k → 5%Colorado Trail Foundation: $500 → 7%Village Health Partnership: $20k → 12%Worldwide Fistula Fund: $20k → 14%Kakenya Center for Excellence: $20k → 7%Wells Mountain Initiative: $5k → 9%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

VT
MT
IL
NY
IN
CA
CO
VA
AZ
KS
AR
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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$251k · 12 repeat orgs$8k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
1

Total granted

$251k
$8k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23
InternationalHealthEducationAnimalsRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • VH
    VILLAGE HEALTH PARTNERSHIP
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +43%
  • KC
    KAKENYA CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +279%
  • BI
    BRIDGE2RWANDA INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $32k · revenue +45%

Funded once

  • SD
    Six Degrees of Seperation
    one grant, 2022 · $8k
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
African Wildlife Foundation Inc

Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…

Animals
2
Gishwati Foundation

The Gishwati Foundation supports conservation, education, community development, and scientific research in the region surrounding Gishwati Forest in the western province of Rwanda.

—
3
Kuramo Foundation for Sustainable Development Inc
Community Improvement
4
The Serengeti Foundation
Environment
5
Vision for Africa
Religion
6
Seeds of Change Foundation
Philanthropy
7
Maasai American Organization

Health, education, community development

—
8
Building Schools in Africa
Education
9
Intertribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council
—
10
African Womens Education Fund

Support secondary education in 5 African countries

International
11
Pastoralist Child Foundation

Pastoralist Child Foundation supports the health and well-being of the pastoralist (semi-nomadic) communities in Samburu and Maasai Mara, Kenya. Through advocacy, workshops, community dialogues, youth sports tournaments, and womens…

International
12
Project Kilimanjaro

Promote health and wellness globally for women and kids

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kakenya Center for Excellence; the most unlike its peers is Gotta Have Hope Inc. 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

12 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. 12 of the 13 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BRIDGE2RWANDA INC: $31,545 · InternationalBRIDGE2RWANDA INCWELLS MOUNTAIN INITIATIVE INC: $18,000 · InternationalWELLS MOUNTAIN INITIATIVE INCBULAMU INTERNATIONAL: $15,500 · InternationalBULAMU INTERNATIONALTHE SKY IS NOT LIMITED: $15,000 · InternationalTHE SKY IS NOT LIMITEDGOTTA HAVE HOPE INC: $12,500 · InternationalGOTTA HAVE HOPE INCVILLAGE HEALTH PARTNERSHIP: $40,000 · HealthVILLAGE HEALTH PARTNERSHIPWORLDWIDE FISTULA FUND: $40,000 · HealthWORLDWIDE FISTULA FUNDKAKENYA CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE: $40,000 · EducationKAKENYA CENTER FOR EXCELLENCEMADINA VILLAGE SCHOOL INC: $35,000 · EducationMADINA VILLAGE SCHOOL INCSix Degrees of Seperation: $7,500 · OtherSAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $1,000 · AnimalsWILD SHEEP FOUNDATION: $1,000 · AnimalsThe Colorado Trail Foundation: $1,000 · Recreation & Sports
International$92,545Health$80,000Education$75,000Other$7,500Animals$2,000Recreation & Sports$1,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVILLAGE HEALTH PARTNERSHIP: $40,000 over 2y, 7.4% of budgetWORLDWIDE FISTULA FUND: $40,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetKAKENYA CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE: $40,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetMADINA VILLAGE SCHOOL INC: $35,000 over 2y, 5.3% of budgetBRIDGE2RWANDA INC: $31,545 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetWELLS MOUNTAIN INITIATIVE INC: $18,000 over 2y, 15% of budgetBULAMU INTERNATIONAL: $15,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE SKY IS NOT LIMITED: $15,000 over 2y, 89% of budgetGOTTA HAVE HOPE INC: $12,500 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetSAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe Colorado Trail Foundation: $1,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWILD SHEEP FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% 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.

American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Endowment FoundationOH9.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Roger & Katherine Flahive Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Roger & Katherine Flahive Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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.

    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 13 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Roger & Katherine Flahive’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