Skip to content
Ram Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ram Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$2.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
80
Grants FY2024still arriving
8
States reached
$158k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Youth Development$2.1MEducation$2.0MHousing & Shelter$1.6MHuman Services$1.6MHealth$1.3MFood & Nutrition$1.1MPhilanthropy$814kRecreation & Sports$803kOther$0
02FY2024 · 80 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k38 grants · $115k
  • $10k–50k23 grants · $452k
  • $50k–250k19 grants · $1.6M
$10,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$37M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PARIS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING$158,000
MANEGAIT THERAPEUTIC HORSEMANSHIP$153,800
HOMESTAY INC$150,000
UNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY$122,477
RED RIVER VALLEY DOWN SYNDROME ASSO$111,661
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE RED RIVE$104,475
CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC$100,000
PARIS JUNIOR COLLEGE$86,727
PARIS COMMUNITY THEATER$80,300
PARIS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$75,000
DOWNTOWN FOOD PANTRY$65,000
TAILORED RIDES EQUINE THERAPY$62,600
TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY$60,261
YOUNG LIFE OF LAMAR COUNTY$55,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE CAPITAL$54,362
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 (FY17–24, $990k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 51% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 12%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $20k → 10%GOODLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S HO: $33k → 24%EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $6k → 21%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $20k → 10%GOODLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S HO: $30k → 24%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $10k → 10%GOODLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S HOOME: $30k → 24%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $10k → 10%GOODLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S HO: $28k → 24%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $10k → 10%GOODLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S HOOME: $26k → 24%MANEGAIT THERAPEUTIC HORSEMANSHIP: $154k → 5%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $10k → 10%GOODLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHILDREN'S HO: $26k → 24%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $10k → 10%MANEGAIT THERAPEUTIC HORSEMANSHIP: $129k → 5%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $10k → 10%MISSOURI SHORES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CENTER: $16k → 10%MANEGAIT THERAPEUTIC HORSEMANSHIP: $31k → 5%SM WRIGHT FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%FLATWATER FOUNDATION: $25k → 10%MANEGAIT THERAPEUTIC HORSEMANSHIP: $29k → 5%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $100k → 19%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $50k → 19%MANEGAIT THERAPEUTIC HORSEMANSHIP: $6k → 5%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $43k → 19%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $34k → 19%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $25k → 19%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $20k → 19%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $20k → 19%CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $20k → 19%OAHE FAMILY YMCA: $500 → 10%CITYSQUARE OF PARIS: $514 → 15%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

MI
NY
OR
SD
NE
NM
KS
AR
OK
AL
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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$12M · 121 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

121 repeat relationships: 57 still active in FY2024, 64 since wound down; 21 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

121
99

Total granted

$12M
$1.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+19%

Still filing today

30%
18%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $79k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesEducationHealthAnimalsHousing & ShelterYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $736k · revenue +17%
  • TC
    TRINITY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
    3× · 2018–2020 · $554k · revenue +44%
  • RR
    Red River Valley Down Syndrome Society
    8× · 2017–2024 · $411k · revenue +131%

Funded once

  • PP
    PARIS PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2023 · $601k
  • CO
    CITY OF PARIS HOME PROGRAM
    one grant, 2021 · $300k
  • OO
    OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MGMT - LAMAR CO
    one grant, 2023 · $120k
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
Texas Foster Care & Adoption Serv

A state of texas licensed foster care and adoption agency that identifies and provides approved healing foster homes for children.

Human Services
2
Central Texas Pregnancy Care Center

Pregnancy counseling

Human Services
3
The James Bruner Tk Ranch Inc

The james bruner-tk ranch, inc. operates personal care facilities for mentally challenged adults, licensed by the texas department of human services. the primary goal of tk ranch is to provide a safe and decent living environment for the…

Housing & Shelter
4
Central Texas Children's Home

To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.

Human Services
5
Hendrick Home for Children
—
6
Sunny Glen Children's Home Inc

Sunny Glen Childrens Home, Inc. cares for children in need. Our care will be competent, compassionate and professional. We will help every child achieve their greatest potential-physically, emotionally, spiritually and academically.

Human Services
7
Lubbock Family Outreach Center Inc Dba Family Guidance & Outreach Center

The Family Guidance & Outreach Center of Lubbock is dedicated to the prevention of child abuse and neglect and supporting, mentoring, and educating parents.

Human Services
8
The Lullaby House

The Lullaby House missionis ot strengthen families by providing programs and services to teenage parents and familites in need which will inspire and promote generational change.

Youth Development
9
Center for 20TH Century Texas Studies
—
10
How Center

The H.O.W. Center provides a safe and structured living environment for individuals recovering from alcoholism and addiction while they gain the skills they need to live independently and successfully.

—
11
Childrens Advocacy Center of Van Zandt County Inc

The children's advocacy center of van zandt county is committed to ensuring quality services and support to those children impacted by abuse while also building a future where no child in van zandt county experiences abuse.

Human Services
12
Casa of South Texas Inc

Child Advocacy

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ach Child and Family Services; the most unlike its peers is Baby Gunns Animal Rescue. 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

63 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. 63 of the 243 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.

11
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
16
Early backer (in before they grew)
58/63
Grantees still filing
40/63
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE RED RIVE: $610,025 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE RED RIVEPARIS PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATION: $601,000 · OtherPARIS PICKLEBALL ASSOCIATIONNEW HOPE CENTER: $591,852 · OtherNEW HOPE CENTERPARIS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $472,500 · OtherYOUNG LIFE OF LAMAR COUNTY: $332,500 · Other+164 more: $6,737,023 · Other+164 moreMane Gait: $347,800 · Human ServicesMane GaitCLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $311,894 · Human ServicesCLARKSVILLE…PARIS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING: $183,000 · Human ServicesPARIS TRANS…GOODLAND INC: $172,370 · Human ServicesGOODLAND IN…HOSPICE AUSTIN: $100,000 · Human ServicesHOSPICE AUS…CITYSQUARE: $97,990 · Human ServicesCITYSQUARESHELTER AGENCIES FOR FAMILIES IN EAST TEXAS: $79,367 · Human ServicesSHELTER AGE…+6 more: $62,818 · Human ServicesTRINITY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY: $553,500 · EducationTexas A&M Foundation: $110,000 · EducationAUSTIN COLLEGE: $27,907 · Education+5 more: $79,450 · EducationUNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY: $735,716 · PhilanthropyRed River Valley Down Syndrome Society: $410,661 · HealthMIDLAND CHILDRENS REHABILITATION CENTER INC: $175,000 · HealthTAILORED RIDES EQUINE ASSISTED THERAPY INC: $394,200 · AnimalsFRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC: $100,000 · AnimalsBABY GUNNS ANIMAL RESCUE: $53,000 · AnimalsLAMAR COUNTY HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $23,500 · AnimalsHOME STAY INC: $401,356 · Housing & ShelterTEXAS RAMP PROJECT: $135,000 · Housing & Shelter+1 more: $1,025 · Housing & Shelter
Other$9,344,900Human Services$1,355,239Education$770,857Philanthropy$735,716Health$585,661Animals$570,700Housing & Shelter$537,381

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY: $735,716 over 8y, 15% of budgetTRINITY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY: $553,500 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetRed River Valley Down Syndrome Society: $410,661 over 8y, 23% of budgetHOME STAY INC: $401,356 over 2y, 92% of budgetTAILORED RIDES EQUINE ASSISTED THERAPY INC: $394,200 over 6y, 74% of budgetMane Gait: $347,800 over 5y, 6.3% of budgetCLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC: $311,894 over 8y, 50% of budgetParis Community Theater: $207,300 over 3y, 40% of budgetCASA For Kids Inc: $196,200 over 7y, 7.5% of budgetPARIS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING: $183,000 over 2y, 88% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of the Red River Valle y: $179,700 over 2y, 27% of budgetMIDLAND CHILDRENS REHABILITATION CENTER INC: $175,000 over 4y, 2.2% of budgetCAMP KIWANIS ON PAT MAYSE LAKE INC: $172,500 over 5y, 49% of budgetGOODLAND INC: $172,370 over 6y, 3.4% of budgetARK-TEX COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS: $151,300 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetLAGUNA MADRE YOUTH CENTER: $146,000 over 4y, 19% of budgetMercy Ships International: $135,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS RAMP PROJECT: $135,000 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetFor the Nations Refugee Outreach: $120,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetPARIS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $119,900 over 5y, 19% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $110,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHOSPICE AUSTIN: $100,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY REEF INC: $100,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetCITYSQUARE: $97,990 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetSHELTER AGENCIES FOR FAMILIES IN EAST TEXAS: $79,367 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetPRESERVING HISTORIC PROPERTIES INC: $75,000 over 3y, 33% of budgetNORTHEAST TEXAS TRAIL COALITION: $70,070 over 3y, 47% of budgetCHRISTIAN WOMENS JOB CORP: $65,000 over 4y, 18% of budgetOAHE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION: $56,341 over 5y, 5.6% of budgetBABY GUNNS ANIMAL RESCUE: $53,000 over 2y, 30% of budgetKING'S DAUGHTERS AND KING'S SONS - FIRST CIRCLE: $30,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetAUSTIN COLLEGE: $27,907 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetLAMAR COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW ASSOCIATION: $26,040 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FLATWATER FOUNDATON: $25,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetTEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $24,775 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLAMAR COUNTY HUMANE ASSOCIATION: $23,500 over 3y, 16% of budgetRED RIVER VALLEY FAIR ASSOCIATION: $23,000 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetThe University of Tulsa: $21,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDYLANS DRIVERS: $20,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetMISSOURI SHORES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CENTER: $15,593 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetCHARLIES PLACE RECOVERY CENTER: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTexas Chief Deputies Association: $15,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetSM Wright Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetST JOSEPH'S COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 4y, 2.3% of budgetCONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: $7,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $6,375 over 1y, 0.2% 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 UNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds TRINITY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds Red River Valley Down Syndrome Society ↗
  • Who funds HOME STAY INC ↗
  • Who funds TAILORED RIDES EQUINE ASSISTED THERAPY INC ↗
  • Who funds Mane Gait ↗
  • Who funds CLARKSVILLE FOOD PANTRY INC ↗
  • Who funds Paris Community Theater ↗
  • Who funds CASA For Kids Inc ↗
  • Who funds PARIS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ↗
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Club of the Red River Valle y ↗
  • Who funds MIDLAND CHILDRENS REHABILITATION CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CAMP KIWANIS ON PAT MAYSE LAKE INC ↗
  • Who funds GOODLAND INC ↗
  • Who funds ARK-TEX COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ↗
  • Who funds LAGUNA MADRE YOUTH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Mercy Ships International ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS RAMP PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds For the Nations Refugee Outreach ↗
  • Who funds PARIS EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Texas A&M Foundation ↗

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.

United Way of Lamar C…First Federal Communi…St Joseph's Community…The Roy and Skeeter D…Communities Foundatio…Delta Dental of South…Oahe FoundationEast Texas Communitie…Boys & Girls Clubs of…South Dakota Communit…Community Foundation …The Dallas Foundation
United Way of Lamar CountyTX26.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 6 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Lamar County · First Federal Community Foundation · St Joseph's Community Foundation · The Roy and Skeeter Davis Family Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Delta Dental of South Dakota · Oahe Foundation · East Texas Communities Foundation · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · South Dakota Community Foundation · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · The Dallas 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 Ram Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ram Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • The University of Tulsa: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Ram Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Ram 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.

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 243 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Ram’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