· Private foundation
Rosso Family 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k21 grants · $58k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NEXT | $10,000 |
| CO Outdoor Educ Sanborn | $7,500 |
| National PKU Alliance | $5,000 |
| The Community House | $5,000 |
| Torch Lake Protection Alliance | $5,000 |
| SCHOLAR Birmingham Schools | $5,000 |
| Oregon Wild | $5,000 |
| Wild Fish Conservancy | $3,500 |
| Cascadia Wildlands | $2,500 |
| Colorado Outdoor Education Center | $2,500 |
| Grass River Natural Area Inc | $2,250 |
| The Environmental Center | $2,000 |
| TART Trails Inc | $2,000 |
| Oregon Natural Desert Association | $2,000 |
| Friends of the Birmingham Museum | $2,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 91% 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.
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 +55% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
25 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 8 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, 60% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k 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
- COColorado Outdoor Education Center Inc4× · 2020–2024 · $18k · revenue +416%
- NPNATIONAL PKU ALLIANCE INC2× · 2022–2024 · $14k · revenue +21%
- TATRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC4× · 2020–2024 · $14k · revenue +89%
Funded once
- WSWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2021 · $25k
- GTGRAND TRAVERSE LAND CONSERVANCYone grant, 2022 · $20k
- OSOREGON STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2021 · $7k
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.
To coordinate actions for protecting and restoring the health of owasco lake and its watershed to ensure that owasco lake will serve as a source of public drinking water, a recreational asset, an economic driver, and an important natural…
The coalition to protect michigan resources's mission is to be a strong voice for the equitable co-management of michigan's fisheries, with both the great lakes and inland lakes and streams, to insure that conservation principles remain in…
To promote the conservation of natural resources in the state of north dakota
To conserve functioning salmon/steelhead eco-system at watershed levels, integrate angling activities with basic scientific research, collect raw data, monitor environmental functions, salmon/steelhead population dynamics, public…
It is our mission at huron pines to conserve and enhance northern michigan's natural resources to ensure healthy water, protected places and vibrant communities. for alomst 50 years, our work across the forests, lakes and streams of…
Promote wildlife habitat
To conserve, sustain, and connect natural areas, land, and waters that make the places we live special
Support ecosystem-based wildlife management by increasing public awareness of wildlife issues, responding to information requests, advocating for science-based wildlife habitat management through proposal and comment submissions, and…
Working for a wild yaak through science, education, and bold action.
Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…
Develop educational network to communicate historical and scientific information empasizing natural and cultural resources to pacific northwest.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cascadia Wildlands and the most unlike its peers is National Pku Alliance Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% 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 12% 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.
23 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. 23 of the 41 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 Colorado Outdoor Education Center Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PKU ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds TRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC ↗
- Who funds GRASS RIVER NATURAL AREA INC ↗
- Who funds WILD FISH CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds CASCADIA WILDLANDS ↗
- Who funds PADDLE ANTRIM ↗
- Who funds TORCH LAKE PROTECTION ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER INC DBA - THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds TRUSTEES FOR ALASKA ↗
- Who funds UMPQUA WATERSHEDS ↗
- Who funds ORCA BEHAVIOR INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild ↗
- Who funds OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds RELEAF MICHIGAN INC ↗
- Who funds FORGOTTEN HARVEST INC ↗
- Who funds FORBUSH CORNER NORDIC ↗
- Who funds WATER WORKS THEATRE COMPANY INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE FLATHEAD AVALANCHE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds The Leelanau School ↗
- Who funds VASA SKI CLUB ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds SEVEN PONDS NATURE CENTER INC ↗
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: Patagoniaorg · The Burning Foundation · Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation · Seattle Foundation · The Herrington-Fitch Family Foundation Inc C/O Leslie Lee · Wilburforce Foundation · Oleson Foundation · Rotary Charities of Traverse City · Harry a and Margaret D Towsley Foundation · The Oregon Community Foundation · The Collins Foundation · Meyer Memorial Trust
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 Rosso Family 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Umpqua Watersheds — 41% of income from government
- Oregon Natural Desert Association — 9% of income from government
- Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund Oregon Wild — 2% of income from government
- Central Oregon Environmental Center Inc Dba - the Environmental Center — 0% 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Rosso Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Rosso Family 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.