· Private foundation
Rowland Family Charitable Trust
Its FY2025 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 FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k45 grants · $163k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $30k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COVENANT HOUSE WASHINGTON | $10,000 |
| HOMEFRONT | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| WOODSTOCK COMMUNITY TRUST | $7,000 |
| CENTER FOR GREAT EXPECTATIONS | $7,000 |
| SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER | $5,000 |
| VIRGINIA LEAGUE PLAN PARENTHOOD | $5,000 |
| FEEDING AMERICA | $5,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND | $5,000 |
| RAPP AT HOME | $5,000 |
| SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS | $5,000 |
| SMITH CENTER FOR HEALING | $5,000 |
| UPPER VALLEY HAVEN | $5,000 |
| CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
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 (FY19–25, $206k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 35% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
39 repeat relationships — 33 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 14 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, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $49k 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
- TCTHE CENTER FOR GREAT EXPECTATIONS INC6× · 2019–2025 · $66k · revenue +28%
HOMEFRONT INC6× · 2019–2025 · $55k · revenue +60%- JHJUBILEE HOUSE COMMUNITY5× · 2021–2025 · $25k · revenue +10%
Funded once
- SEsee excel list doneesone grant, 2020 · $163k
GLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -40%- CHCOVENANT HOUSEgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $12k · revenue +34%
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 women's resource center empowers survivors by providing trauma-informed services with equity and compassion while working collaboratively with the community to eliminate the root causes of interpersonal abuse.
To end the injustice of hunger for everyone and prioritize the people most affected by hunger to make a permanent systemic change.
Transition house is a human services agency dedicated to preventing and ending domestic violence. the agency provides a continuum of housing resources and holistic support for survivors of violence and their children, as well as prevention…
To provide accessible barrier-free services to empower people experiencing problems with homelessness, housing, hunger, and poverty and to advocate for solutions to those problems.
Improve the health of every person in our community through the efficient delivery of excellent, innovative and compassionate care.
Nacwa is the national voice of public clean water utilities, shaping water policy, convening a vibrant peer network, and empowering water leaders.
The mission of women against abuse is to provide quality, compassionate, and nonjudgmental services in a manner that fosters self-respect and independence in persons experiencing intimate partner violence and to lead the struggle to end…
Improve the health of every person in our community through the efficient delivery of excellent, innovative and compassionate care.
Improve the health of every person in our community through the efficient delivery of excellent, innovative and compassionate care.
The vermont network aims to uproot the causes of domestic and sexual violence in vermont and create a world free of oppression where actions, beliefs and systems support all people to thrive. we accomplish this through our key programs…
Provide safe, sanitary, and suitable living accommodations for low, moderate, and middle income persons within nantucket county.
Develop and train cooperatives to create and sustain democratically owned, cooperative enterprises and networks in the northeast that grow a prosperous and equitable economy.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Center for Great Expectations Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lacuna Corporation. 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 36 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% 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.
41 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. 41 of the 69 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 THE CENTER FOR GREAT EXPECTATIONS INC ↗
- Who funds COVENANT HOUSE WASHINGTON DC ↗
- Who funds HOMEFRONT INC ↗
- Who funds Southern Center for Human Rights ↗
- Who funds THE HOMESTEAD INC OF NANTUCKET ↗
- Who funds JUBILEE HOUSE COMMUNITY ↗
- Who funds GLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ALIVE Inc ↗
- Who funds ADDICTION SOLUTIONS OF NANTUCKET INC ↗
- Who funds TASK Inc Trenton Area Soup Kitchen Inc ↗
- Who funds RAPP AT HOME ↗
- Who funds UPPER VALLEY HAVEN ↗
- Who funds CARPENTER'S SHELTER INC ↗
- Who funds Feeding America ↗
- Who funds Woodstock Community Trust Inc ↗
- Who funds NAMI National ↗
- Who funds A SAFE PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds MIKE'S 5K TO CRUSH SUBSTANCE ABUSE INC ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA LEAGUE FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds DISABILITY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds COVENANT HOUSE ↗
- Who funds FINCA INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds DIRECT RELIEF ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL NEEDS SUPPORT CENTER OF THE UPPER VALLEY ↗
- Who funds Lacuna Corporation ↗
- Who funds LAWRENCE HOPEWELL TRAIL CORPORATION ↗
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: Community Foundation for Nantucket Inc · The Vermont Community Foundation · The Help for People Foundation · The Couch Family Foundation · Mascoma Bank Foundation · Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation Inc · Princeton Area Community Foundation Inc · New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Impactassetsinc · Mightycause Charitable 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 Rowland Family Charitable Trust 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.
- Disability Law Center Inc — 57% of income from government
- Womanspace Inc — 47% of income from government
- A Safe Place Inc — 45% of income from government
- Upper Valley Haven — 38% of income from government
- Willing Hands Enterprises Inc — 17% of income from government
- Community Foundation for Nantucket Inc — 10% of income from government
- D&r Greenway Land Trust Inc — 9% of income from government
- Homefront Inc — 9% of income from government
- New Britain Museum of American Art Inc — 7% of income from government
- Upper Valley Trails Alliance — 3% of income from government
- Vermont Public Co — 0% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 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 Rowland Family Charitable Trust?
Find your warmest path to Rowland Family Charitable Trust 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.