Skip to content
Rick Oehme Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Rick Oehme Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$125k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$105k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Health$856kHousing & Shelter$10kCrime & Legal$10kFood & Nutrition$10kReligion$10kYouth Development$5kHuman Services$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $105k
$5,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BARROW NEUROLOGICAL FOUNDATION$105,000
THE JOY BUS$5,000
STUDENTS SUPPORTING BRAIN TUMOR RESEARCH$5,000
LEEDS EPISCOPAL CHURCH$5,000
HOPE FOR FAMILIES CENTER$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 (FY23–24, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 33% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%PHOENIX PROJECT: $10k → 10%FRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $5k → 11%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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$761k · 5 repeat orgs$170k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
8

Total granted

$761k
$165k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
+53%

Still filing today

60%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthFood & NutritionHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • BN
    BARROW NEUROLOGICAL FOUNDATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $691k · revenue -31%
  • SS
    STUDENTS SUPPORTING BRAIN TUMOR RESEARCH
    4× · 2020–2025 · $30k · revenue +23%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2021–2024 · $20k

Funded once

  • IB
    IVY BRAIN TUMOR CENTER (BARROW NEURO
    one grant, 2020 · $73k
  • IB
    IVY BRAIN TUMOR CENTER
    one grant, 2019 · $57k
  • PP
    PHOENIX PROJECT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +53%
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
City Help Inc of Phoenix

Our mission is to reach in and mine the incredible potential we believe lies within the lives of at-risk youth, the homeless, and needy families of our community by restoring hope and allowing them to dream again.

Human Services
2
Cancer Support Community Arizona

CSCAZ uplifts and strengthens people impacted by cancer by providing support, fostering compassionate communities, and breaking down barriers to care.

Health
3
Honorhealth

Honorhealth's mission is to improve the health and well-being of those we serve.

Health
4
Phoenix Rising Hope Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Phoenix Services Corporation

To provide training and treatment to the developmentally disabled. specifically to individuals who have brain trauma. services are intended to assist individuals in transitioning into independent lives.

Human Services
6
Phoenix Children's Hospital Foundation

Phoenix children's hospital foundation supports phoenix children's hospital through fundraising ensuring that the hospital continues to stay on the leading edge of pediatric medicine and is equipped to fulfill its mission to advance hope,…

Health
7
House of Hope

Treating substance use disorders, rebuilding lives, strengthening families, and empowering women.

—
8
Banner Health

Banner health's nonprofit mission is "making health care easier, so life can be better".

Health
9
Onward Hope Incorporated

We are committed to improving and assisting the successful transition of at-risk young people to independent adulthood and supporting resilient families, by connecting them to resources.

Human Services
10
Pennsylvania Organization for Women in Early Recovery

See schedule o.power's mission is to help women reclaim their lives from addiction and related emotional health issues and improve the well-being of future generations. we provide a range of gender-responsive, trauma-informed drug and…

Health
11
New Hope Inc

New hope engages survivors, stakeholders and communities to build an anti-violence movement. using a trauma-informed practice, we work with those impacted by sexual and domestic violence, as well as those persons who use abuse in their…

Human Services
12
Safe Nesttemporary Assistance for

Safe nest's mission is to provide comprehensive, collaborative, and innovative services for everyone affected by domestic and sexual violence while passionatley working to end this shared epidemic.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Hope for Families Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Reaching Out Now 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

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 14 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BARROW NEUROLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $690,500 · HealthBARROW NEUROLOGICAL FOUNDATIONSTUDENTS SUPPORTING BRAIN TUMOR RESEARCH: $30,000 · HealthIVY BRAIN TUMOR CENTER (BARROW NEURO: $73,000 · OtherIVY BRAIN TUMOR CENT…IVY BRAIN TUMOR CENTER: $57,000 · OtherIVY BRAIN TUMOR CENT…Individual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherIndividual grant rec…LEEDS EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $10,000 · OtherLEEDS EPISCOPAL CHUR…+2 more: $10,000 · Other+2 morePHOENIX PROJECT INC: $10,000 · Human ServicesFRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE HOPE FOR FAMILIES CENTER INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE JOY BUS: $10,000 · Food & NutritionReaching Out Now Inc: $5,000 · Food & NutritionUMOM NEW DAY CENTERS INC: $5,000 · Housing & Shelter
Health$720,500Other$170,000Human Services$20,000Food & Nutrition$15,000Housing & Shelter$5,000

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 budgetBARROW NEUROLOGICAL FOUNDATION: $690,500 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetSTUDENTS SUPPORTING BRAIN TUMOR RESEARCH: $30,000 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetTHE JOY BUS: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetPHOENIX PROJECT INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetFRESH START WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE HOPE FOR FAMILIES CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUMOM NEW DAY CENTERS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetReaching Out Now Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 10% 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.

Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO5.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 14 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 Rick Oehme’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