· Private foundation
Team Foundation
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 2024.
Where the money goes
Grants by size, and the largest recipients.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k18 grants · $68k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $53k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SANFORD HEALTH | $52,500 |
| HOSPICE OF RED RIVER VALLEY | $25,000 |
| GONVICK FIRE DEPARTMENT | $10,000 |
| DETROIT LAKES HIGH SCHOOL | $8,000 |
| LAKE PARK AUDUBON SCHOOLS | $5,895 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| CLEARBROOK GONVICK SCHOOL | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| LAKE PARK AUDUBON ECFE | $5,000 |
| PERHAM ROBOTICS BOOSTER CLUB | $5,000 |
| CITY OF LAKE PARK | $5,000 |
| MAGELSSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL | $3,500 |
| BLUEJACKETS ROBOTICS BOOSTER CLUB | $3,000 |
| LAKE PARK AUDUBON ROBOTICS | $3,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $3,000 |
Does the money reach high-need areas?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.
Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $58k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 79% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
How this is measured
Which US states its grants reach
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 +60% since the first grant, against +33% for those funded once.
57 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 42 since wound down; 6 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, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
How this is measured
Backed again, and grew
- CWCLEAR WATERS LIFE CENTER7× · 2017–2025 · $46k · revenue +54%
- BRBlueJacket Robotics Booster Club5× · 2021–2025 · $39k · revenue +264% · 36% of their budget
- HIHOPE INC3× · 2022–2024 · $25k · revenue +10%
Funded once
- BYBAGLEY YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2018 · $200k · revenue +15%
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB DETROIT LAKESone grant, 2022 · $75k
- CCCHEROKEE COUNTY SCHOOLSone grant, 2023 · $54k
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.
STEM enrichment for grade 7-12 students through participation in First Robotics programs.
Raise funds for handicap people to participate in sports activities
The mission of the organization is to provide positive programming for the development of youth through sports. objectives include, but are not limited to: physical and social development, working together, discipline, respect, caring,…
Provide opportinity to play hockey to those with physical disabilities.
support of club sports activities recruitment and travel
Support Hoop Troop AAU Basketball program & athletes
How this is measured
24 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 24 of the 129 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.
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: Midcontinent Foundation · Sanford Group Return · George W Neilson Foundation · Northwest Minnesota Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Communitygiving · The Minneapolis Foundation · Initiative Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund
How this is measured
How much its grantees rely on government
Each dot is one organization Team Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Team Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.
How this is measured
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Team Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Team 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.
Play a game based on Team’s filings →