Skip to content
The Robert P Rotella Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Robert P Rotella Foundation

Its FY2020 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$8.8M
Granted FY2020
3
Grants FY2020
3
States reached
$8.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2020.

Philanthropy$10MCivil Rights$48kPublic Benefit$28kEnvironment$22kHealth$18kScience & Tech$16kAnimals$13kCrime & Legal$11kOther$0
02FY2020 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k2 grants · $4k
  • $250k+1 grant · $8.8M
$2,050
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MORGAN STANLEY GLOBAL IMPACT FUNDING TRUST (GIFT)$8,827,975
PEARL S BUCK INTERNATIONAL$2,050
BLUE SPHERE FOUNDATION$2,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY19–19, $350) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CHARITY NAVIGATOR: $350 → 7%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
IL
MI
NY
MA
OR
SD
IN
PA
NJ
CA
VA
AZ
DC
AL
GA
TX
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field

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.

1
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
2
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
3
Open Markets Institute

The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.

Education
4
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
5
International Rivers Network

International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.

Environment
6
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
7
World Coffee Research

World coffee research unites the global coffee industry to drive science-based agricultural solutions to urgently secure a diverse and sustainable supply of quality coffee today and for generations to come. our mission is to grow, protect,…

International
8
Water Environment Federation

WEF's mission is inspiring the water community in pursuit of human and environmental well-being. WEF is a global environmental leader committed to water quality education and technical best practices. WEF connects water professionals;…

Environment
9
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide

Educational & charitable. to provide legal and scientific information to public interest attorneys and scientists in numerous countries.

—
10
World Privacy Forum

The world privacy forum is dedicated to reimaging privacy in a digital era through ground-breaking, in-depth privacy research and consumer education of the highest quality. our vision is to empower people with the knowledge, rights, and…

Public Benefit
11
Institute for Public Accuracy

To teach and disseminate educational materials to the public.

Arts & Culture
12
Food & Water Watch

Food & water watch conducts extensive research and public education to ensure the food and water we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced. so we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Only One Inc; the most unlike its peers is African Wildlife Foundation 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

28 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. 28 of the 35 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/28
Grantees still filing
25/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MORGAN STANLEY GLOBAL IMPACT FUNDING TRUST (GIFT): $10,084,110 · OtherMORGAN STANLEY GLOBAL IMPACT FUNDING TRUST (GIFT)+16 more: $97,950 · OtherWASHINGTON POLICY CENTER: $15,000 · Civil RightsINSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE: $10,000 · Civil RightsSTATE POLICY NETWORK: $5,000 · Civil RightsActon Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty: $2,500 · Civil RightsENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $7,500 · EnvironmentPollinator Partnership: $7,500 · EnvironmentWESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY: $2,500 · EnvironmentONLY ONE INC: $2,000 · EnvironmentPCC FARMLAND TRUST: $1,000 · EnvironmentCITIZENS' COUNCIL FOR HEALTH FREEDOM: $10,000 · HealthNATIONAL HEALTH FREEDOM COALITION: $7,723 · HealthBARRY GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH: $7,500 · Public BenefitTAX FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Public BenefitFRIENDS OF MAITI NEPAL A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION: $5,000 · InternationalPEARL S BUCK INTERNATIONAL INC: $4,510 · InternationalWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $7,500 · AnimalsWASHINGTON WILD: $1,000 · AnimalsAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC: $500 · Animals
Other$10,182,060Civil Rights$32,500Environment$20,500Health$17,723Public Benefit$12,500International$9,510Animals$9,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetElectronic Frontier Foundation Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWASHINGTON POLICY CENTER: $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCenter for Food Safety: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPollinator Partnership: $7,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetBARRY GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLUDWIG VON MISES INSTITUTE FOR AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMOVING PICTURE INSTITUTE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAtlas Economic Research Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTATE POLICY NETWORK: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF MAITI NEPAL A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION: $5,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetTAX FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPEARL S BUCK INTERNATIONAL INC: $4,510 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetActon Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBELLEVUE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWESTERN RIVERS CONSERVANCY: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPCC FARMLAND TRUST: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWASHINGTON WILD: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetVeterans For Child Rescue Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetAFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCharity Navigator: $350 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
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.

Seattle FoundationPatagoniaorgMorgan Stanley Global…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Vanguard Charitable E…Raymond James Charita…The Bank of America C…American Endowment Fo…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…
Seattle FoundationWA14.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · Patagoniaorg · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Robert P Rotella Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Robert P Rotella Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Western Rivers Conservancy: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
2report 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, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 35 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Robert P Rotella’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home