Skip to content
Reeves Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Reeves Family Foundation

$11k
Granted FY2022
4
Grants FY2022
3
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Social Science$43kReligion$19kYouth Development$6kHealth$6kInternational$3kArts & Culture$2kPhilanthropy$2kEducation$2kOther$0
02FY2022 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,650
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE$5,000
OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA$4,650
SAVE THE CHILDREN$1,000
CHRIST CHILD SOCIETY$100
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM: $500 → 10%OXFAM: $500 → 16%NATIONAL CHARITY LEAGUE SAN MARINO: $2k → 14%OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA: $6k → 11%MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING INSTITUTE: $250 → 17%HOLLY FAMILY CATHOLIC COMMUNITY: $250 → 9%SAVE THE CHILDREN: $1k → 9%NATIONAL CHRIST CHILD SOCIETY: $50 → 8%OXFAM: $500 → 16%NATIONAL CHARITY LEAGUE SAN MARINO: $100 → 14%OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA: $5k → 11%NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $15k → 17%SAVE THE CHILDREN: $1k → 9%NATIONAL CHARITY LEAGUE SAN MARINO: $100 → 14%OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA: $5k → 11%NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $10k → 17%SAVE THE CHILDREN: $204 → 9%PASADENA GUILD OF CHILDRENS HOSPITA: $4k → 14%OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA: $2k → 11%NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $8k → 17%PASADENA GUILD OF CHILDRENS HOSPITA: $3k → 14%NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $5k → 17%THE MUSIC CENTER: $1k → 14%NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $4k → 17%FRIENDS OF THE LA PHILHARMONIC: $250 → 14%NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $3k → 17%LOS ANGELES OPERA: $250 → 14%HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL: $3k → 14%OMAZE: $100 → 14%ST PHILLIP THE APOSTLE SCHOOL: $1k → 14%FLINTRIDGE SACRED HEART ACADEMY: $500 → 14%FLINTRIDGE SACRED HEART ACADEMY: $250 → 14%LEUKEMIA AND LYNPHOMA SOCIETY: $3k → 14%CARMELITE SISTERS: $500 → 14%INTERNATIONLA MEDICAL CORP: $258 → 14%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

WI
NY
MA
PA
CT
CA
CO
MD
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.
$73k · 9 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2022, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
16

Total granted

$73k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+18%
+24%

Still filing today

33%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
ReligionInternationalHealthArts & 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

  • NR
    NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE
    6× · 2017–2022 · $43k · revenue +61%
  • OL
    OUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA
    4× · 2019–2022 · $17k
  • PG
    PASADENA GUILD OF CHILDRENS HOSPITA
    2× · 2017–2018 · $6k

Funded once

  • LA
    LEUKEMIA AND LYNPHOMA SOCIETY
    one grant, 2019 · $3k
  • PH
    Pasadena Hospital Association Ltd
    one grant, 2018 · $3k · revenue +24%
  • TM
    THE MUSIC CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 25 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $43,050 · OtherNATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTEOUR LADY STAR OF THE SEA: $17,050 · OtherOUR LADY STAR OF THE SEAPASADENA GUILD OF CHILDRENS HOSPITA: $6,000 · OtherPASADENA GUILD OF CHILDRENS HOSPITA+18 more: $11,608 · Other+18 morePasadena Hospital Association Ltd: $2,500 · HealthSave The Children Federation Inc: $2,204 · InternationalPEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM INC: $500 · Arts & CultureCHRIST CHILD SOCIETY OF PASADENA INC: $275 · Religion
Other$77,708Health$2,500International$2,204Arts & Culture$500Religion$275

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: $43,050 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetPasadena Hospital Association Ltd: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSave The Children Federation Inc: $2,204 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNational Charity League San Marino Area Chapter Inc: $1,700 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetPEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHRIST CHILD SOCIETY OF PASADENA INC: $275 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNATIONAL CHRIST CHILD SOCIETY INC: $50 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.

  • Who funds NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds Pasadena Hospital Association Ltd ↗
  • Who funds Save The Children Federation Inc ↗
  • Who funds National Charity League San Marino Area Chapter Inc ↗
  • Who funds PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds CHRIST CHILD SOCIETY OF PASADENA INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL CHRIST CHILD SOCIETY 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Reeves Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Reeves Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 30%
  • Save the Children Federation Inc: 30% of income from government
  • Peabody Essex Museum Inc: 3% of 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 · 0–40%
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 Reeves Family Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Reeves Family 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 25 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2023) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Reeves Family’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