Skip to content
Caroline and Roxanne Montrose Educational Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Caroline and Roxanne Montrose Educational Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$5k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2017 to 2025.

International$456kHuman Services$98kFood & Nutrition$88kHealth$63kHousing & Shelter$41kPhilanthropy$26kEducation$15kEmployment$5k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$406k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND$5,000
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 (FY23–25, $46k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%HOME FOR HOPE INC: $1k → 7%TRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND: $25k → 8%TRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND: $15k → 8%TRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND: $5k → 8%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.
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$785k · 13 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
3

Total granted

$785k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+23%
+23%

Still filing today

38%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyInternationalArts & CultureOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • HF
    HOMES FOR ORPHANS OF MEXICAN EXTRACTION INC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $52k · revenue +23%
  • SM
    SUNSAR MAYA INC
    5× · 2018–2023 · $16k · revenue +63%
  • AU
    ASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN (AUW) SUPPORT FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2023 · $15k · revenue +670%

Funded once

  • FB
    Future Brilliance US Inc
    one grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue 0%
  • RR
    RAZIAS RAY OF HOPE FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue +23%
  • HO
    HOME OF HOPE LLCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue +63%
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.

04Its 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
International Humanity Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Jamyang Foundation

Jamyang Foundation is an innovative project to help educate girls and young women in developing countries. The project began in 1987 with study programs that combine traditional and contemporary learning. Jamyang Foundation currently…

—
3
Sahar Education

Sahar Education Sahar partners with Afghan based organizations to build schools and create educational opportunities for girls in Afghanistan empowering and inspiring children and their families to build peaceful and thriving communities.

International
4
Asian Childrens Mission

Asian Children's Mission, ACM, exists to care, protect, and educate, vulnerable children in Myanmar (Burma).

Human Services
5
Orphans Hope International
—
6
Hope for Her International

Hope for Her International is dedicated to advocating for a just and peaceful world with a profound emphasis on the rights of women and girls. Our mission is to build a supportive community, foster social entrepreneurship, eradicate…

Human Services
7
Unveiling Joy

Provide help to arab women in west asia

—
8
Clift

Orphan care, shelter, food, education and medical for orphans and children of poverty locations

Human Services
9
Mukti International

Mukti is a Sanskrit word that means "freedom from oppression and exploitation". Our goal is to see women and children find pathways to freedom. We partner with organizations around Asia that are on the frontlines helping to rescue and…

Crime & Legal
10
Rayan Children
Philanthropy
11
Angels Joy

Support victims of human trafficking.

Youth Development
12
Kaiizen Foundation

Kaiizen is an all volunteer organization that plans humanitarian excursions to orphanages and vulnerable children projects in several countries. Our aim is mentor the volunteers we travel with while they serve and mentor the children we…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Razias Ray of Hope Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Asian University for Women (Auw) Support Foundation. 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 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 16 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND: $163,417 · OtherTRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND100 Friends Project: $160,126 · Other100 Friends ProjectCHILDRENS HUNGER RELIEF FUND INC: $88,417 · OtherCHILDRENS HUNGER RELIEF FUND INCHomes for Orphans of Mexican Extrac: $71,750 · OtherHomes for Orphans of Mexican ExtracHealth Habitat: $63,140 · OtherHealth HabitatNepalese Youth Opportunity Foundati: $43,050 · OtherNepalese Youth Opportunity FoundatiHEALTH AND HABITAT: $40,733 · OtherHEALTH AND HABITAT+1 more: $16,000 · OtherHOMES FOR ORPHANS OF MEXICAN EXTRACTION INC: $51,667 · InternationalTRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND INCORPORATED: $45,000 · Human Services+1 more: $1,000 · Human ServicesSUNSAR MAYA INC: $15,750 · PhilanthropyFuture Brilliance US Inc: $5,000 · PhilanthropyASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN (AUW) SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $15,000 · EducationRAZIAS RAY OF HOPE FOUNDATION: $1,000 · EducationPartners Asia: $11,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$646,633International$51,667Human Services$46,000Philanthropy$20,750Education$16,000Arts & Culture$11,000

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 budgetHOMES FOR ORPHANS OF MEXICAN EXTRACTION INC: $51,667 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetTRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND INCORPORATED: $45,000 over 3y, 22% of budgetSUNSAR MAYA INC: $15,750 over 5y, 2.0% of budgetASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN (AUW) SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetPartners Asia: $11,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetFuture Brilliance US Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetRAZIAS RAY OF HOPE FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHOME OF HOPE LLC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds HOMES FOR ORPHANS OF MEXICAN EXTRACTION INC ↗
  • Who funds TRES ISLAS ORPHANAGE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds SUNSAR MAYA INC ↗
  • Who funds ASIAN UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN (AUW) SUPPORT FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Partners Asia ↗
  • Who funds Future Brilliance US Inc ↗
  • Who funds RAZIAS RAY OF HOPE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HOME OF HOPE LLC ↗

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.

Silicon Valley Commun…The San Francisco Fou…Charities Aid Foundat…Vanguard Charitable E…Paypal Charitable Giv…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA18.8× affinity8 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Caroline and Roxanne Montrose Educational Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Caroline and Roxanne Montrose Educational Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 16 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Caroline and Roxanne Montrose Educational’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