Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Roy Whistler Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$559k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$213k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Environment$2.7MArts & Culture$588kRecreation & Sports$251kHousing & Shelter$143kCrime & Legal$28kEmployment$20kCommunity Improvement$15kPhilanthropy$6k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $129k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $430k
$30,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NICHES LAND TRUST INC$213,260
OUIATENON PRESERVE$150,000
TIPPECANOE CO PARKS & REC FOUNDATIO$67,008
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$30,000
CAMP TECUMSEH$29,250
CARROLL COUNTY$27,666
MONARCH JOINT VENTURE$25,000
INDIANA LAND PROTECTION ALLIANCE$17,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 92% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MONARCH JOINT VENTURE: $25k → 14%CAMP TECUMSEH: $29k → 9%BENTON COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSER: $186k → 10%CARROLL COUNTY: $28k → 10%SOUTHERN INDIANA COOPERATIVE INVASI: $20k → 12%INDIANA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $50k → 13%INDIANA LAND PROTECTION ALLIANCE: $17k → 16%OUIATENON PRESERVE INC: $156k → 19%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $30k → 7%STREETS OF MONITCELLO ASSN: $21k → 9%INDIANA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $75k → 16%OUIATENON PRESERVE: $150k → 19%INDIANA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: $66k → 16%TIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIET: $143k → 19%OUIATENON PRESERVE INC: $100k → 19%OUIATENON PRESERVE INC: $79k → 19%OUIATENON PRESERVE INC: $38k → 19%WABASH RIVER ENHANCEMENT: $22k → 19%OUIATENON PRESERVE INC: $20k → 19%TIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICAL ASSOC: $18k → 19%WEST LAFAYETTE PARKS & RECREATION F: $150k → 19%TIPPECANOE CO PARKS & REC FOUNDATIO: $67k → 19%TIPPECANOE PARKS & RECREATION FOUND: $26k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $213k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $164k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $150k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $150k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $150k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $133k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $128k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $103k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $101k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $100k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $100k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $85k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $78k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $69k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $59k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $50k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $48k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $47k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $44k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $34k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $33k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $26k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $24k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $22k → 19%NICHES LAND TRUST INC: $20k → 19%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$3.1M · 5 repeat orgs$600k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +92% since the first grant, against -57% for the ones you funded once.

5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
8

Total granted

$3.1M
$434k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+92%
-57%

Still filing today

60%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $166k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureEducationOther

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

  • NL
    NICHES LAND TRUST INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.2M · revenue +89% · 30% of their budget
  • OP
    OUIATENON PRESERVE INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $549k · revenue +92% · 82% of their budget
  • WR
    WABASH RIVER ENHANCEMENT CORPORATIO ATTN STANTON LAMBERT
    3× · 2019–2024 · $35k · revenue +309%

Funded once

  • BC
    BENTON COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSER
    one grant, 2024 · $186k
  • TC
    TIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIET
    one grant, 2020 · $143k
  • TP
    TIPPECANOE PARKS & RECREATION FOUND
    one grant, 2022 · $26k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Indiana Wildlife Federation

The Indiana Wildlife Federation (IWF) is a statewide, nonprofit conservation organization, with the mission to promote the conservation, sound management, and sustainable use of Indianas wildlife and wildlife habitat through education,…

Animals
2
West Creek Conservancy

Our mission is to enrich the lives of all people in northeast ohio by conserving natural habitats, restoring the ecological value of our region's lands and waters, and expanding opportunities to connect people from all cultures to…

Environment
3
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

This member-supported organization protects and restores iowa's land, water and wildlife for future generations. priorities include permanent land protection, promotion of improved land management and bringing new conservation…

Environment
4
Natural Land Institute

To create an enduring legacy of natural land in northern illinois for people, plants and animals

Environment
5
The Nature Institute
6
Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc

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…

Environment
7
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust
8
Red-Tail Land Conservancy Inc

Red-tail land conservancy preserves, protects, and restores natural areas and farm land in east central indiana while increasing awareness of our natural heritage.

Environment
9
Yakona Nature Preserve
Environment
10
Little Traverse Conservancy Conservation Trust

To protect scenic and natural lands in northern Michigan.

11
National Council for Preservation Education
12
John M Nelson Conservancy

Maintain Protected Land

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Niches Land Trust Inc and the most unlike its peers is Ouiatenon Preserve 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

8 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 20 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

NICHES LAND TRUST INC — $2,179,835 · EnvironmentNICHES LAND TRUST INC+2 more — $52,170 · EnvironmentINDIANA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES — $191,000 · OtherINDIANA DEPT OF NATURAL RES…BENTON COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSER — $185,850 · OtherBENTON COUNTY SOIL AND WATE…WEST LAFAYETTE PARKS & RECREATION F — $163,000 · OtherWEST LAFAYETTE PARKS & RECR…TIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIET — $142,500 · OtherTIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICA…TIPPECANOE CO PARKS & REC FOUNDATIO — $67,008 · OtherTIPPECANOE CO PARKS & REC F…+8 more — $174,516 · Other+8 moreOUIATENON PRESERVE INC — $548,948 · Arts & CultureOUIATENON PRESERV…+1 more — $18,000 · Arts & CultureMONARCH JOINT VENTURE — $25,000 · EducationJASPER NEWTON FOUNDATION INC — $6,000 · Philanthropy
Environment$2,232,005Other$923,874Arts & Culture$566,948Education$25,000Philanthropy$6,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetNICHES LAND TRUST INC — $2,179,835 over 9y, 30% of budgetOUIATENON PRESERVE INC — $548,948 over 5y, 82% of budgetWABASH RIVER ENHANCEMENT CORPORATIO ATTN STANTON LAMBERT — $35,170 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY — $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION — $18,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetJASPER NEWTON FOUNDATION INC — $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
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 NICHES LAND TRUST INC
  • Who funds OUIATENON PRESERVE INC
  • Who funds WABASH RIVER ENHANCEMENT CORPORATIO ATTN STANTON LAMBERT
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
  • Who funds MONARCH JOINT VENTURE
  • Who funds TIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
  • Who funds Indiana Land Protection Alliance
  • Who funds JASPER NEWTON FOUNDATION 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.

Greater Lafayette Community FoundationIN13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Lafayette Community Foundation · Nisource Charitable Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Roy Whistler Foundation Inc 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Roy Whistler Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Roy Whistler Foundation Inc 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 20 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph