· Private foundation
Roy Whistler Foundation Inc
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What it funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k5 grants · $129k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $430k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
How this is measured
Who it funds again
Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.
Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +92% since the first grant, against -57% for those 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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $166k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- NLNICHES LAND TRUST INC9× · 2017–2025 · $2.2M · revenue +89% · 30% of their budget
- OPOUIATENON PRESERVE INC5× · 2020–2025 · $549k · revenue +92% · 82% of their budget
- WRWABASH RIVER ENHANCEMENT CORPORATIO ATTN STANTON LAMBERT3× · 2019–2024 · $35k · revenue +309%
Funded once
- BCBENTON COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERone grant, 2024 · $186k
- TCTIPPECANOE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETone grant, 2020 · $143k
- TPTIPPECANOE PARKS & RECREATION FOUNDone grant, 2022 · $26k
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.
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.
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,…
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…
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…
To create an enduring legacy of natural land in northern illinois for people, plants and animals
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…
Red-tail land conservancy preserves, protects, and restores natural areas and farm land in east central indiana while increasing awareness of our natural heritage.
To protect scenic and natural lands in northern Michigan.
Maintain Protected Land
How this is measured
8 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. 8 of the 20 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.
Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee
Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing
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.
- 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 ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Greater Lafayette Community Foundation · Nisource Charitable Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Roy Whistler Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Roy Whistler Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
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.
Play a game based on Roy Whistler’s filings →