Skip to content
Roach Maxam Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Roach Maxam Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$95k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Public Benefit$86kHealth$84kCivil Rights$70kEducation$67kAnimals$58kFood & Nutrition$31kEnvironment$20kHousing & Shelter$19kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $35k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $60k
$6,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE WALTHER SCHOOL$15,000
Individual grant recipient$15,000
LUSTGARTEN FOUNDATION$10,000
ALEXANDRIA HOUSE$10,000
THE PAD PROJECT$10,000
JHPIEGO$6,000
MCKINLEY CHILDREN'S CENTER$5,000
MUTTVILLE$5,000
CAF AMERICA$5,000
HOLLYWOOD FOOD COALITION$5,000
LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE$4,600
FRIENDS OF THE INYO$4,600
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 (FY20–25, $29k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 66% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LUSTGARTEN FOUNDATION: $10k → 6%ALEXANDRIA HOUSE: $10k → 14%ALEXANDRIA HOUSE: $2k → 14%ALEXANDRIA HOUSE: $2k → 14%ALEXANDRIA HOUSE: $2k → 14%NOHO HOME ALLIANCE: $3k → 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

NY
CA
VA
MD
KS
TN
DC
MS
AL
GA
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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$393k · 15 repeat orgs$167k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +23% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
13

Total granted

$393k
$123k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+23%
+8%

Still filing today

87%
46%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $44k 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
HealthEducationHuman ServicesPublic BenefitEnvironmentAnimalsOther
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

  • SP
    SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $69k · revenue +10%
  • GA
    Government Accountability Project
    6× · 2018–2023 · $65k · revenue +56%
  • M
    MUTTVILLE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $46k · revenue +76%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $20k
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
Food Forward Inc

Food forward fights hunger and prevents food waste by rescuing fresh surplus produce, connecting this abundance with people experiencing food insecurity, and inspiring others to do the same.

Food & Nutrition
2
Public Advocates Inc

For more than five decades, public advocates has challenged the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing,…

—
3
Los Angeles Regional Food Bank

The organization's mission is to mobilize resources to fight hunger in our community. to fulfill its mission, the food bank:* sources and acquires nutritious food and other products and distribute them to people experiencing nutrition…

—
4
Actionaid Usa

Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…

Social Science
5
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo Inc

Planned Parenthood Northern California generates healthier communities through the delivery of quality sexual and reproductive health care services.

Health
6
Project Open Hand

Project Open Hand's mission is to improve health outcomes and quality of life by providing nutritious meals to the sick and vulnerable, caring for and educating our community.

Food & Nutrition
7
Planned Parenthood California Central Coast

To improve our communities' sexual and reproductive health outcomes through health care, education, and advocacy.

Health
8
The Union of Concerned Scientists Inc

The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.

International
9
Public Health Institute

Public health institute generates and promotes research, leadership and partnerships to build capacity for strong public health policy, programs, systems and practices.

Health
10
Friends of the Earth

Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…

Environment
11
Pangea Legal Services

Pangea's mission is to provide deportation defense services, advocate for policy change, and provide education and legal empowerment for our immigrant communities.

Crime & Legal
12
The Humane League

We exist to end the abuse of animals raised for food. this mission is executed by persuading companies and institutions to adopt animal welfare policies through negotiation and pressure campaigns, and then holding them accountable to their…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc; the most unlike its peers is Piedmont 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

26 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. 26 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/26
Grantees still filing
17/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientJHPIEGO CORPORATION: $24,000 · OtherJHPIEGO CORPORATIONTHE WALTHER SCHOOL: $20,000 · OtherTHE WALTHER SCHOOLIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BAND: $11,420 · OtherTrust Women Foundation Inc: $13,000 · OtherTrust Women Foundation IncNAPA COUNTY LAND TRUST: $10,500 · Other+14 more: $44,404 · Other+14 moreGovernment Accountability Project: $65,000 · Public BenefitGovernment Accoun…PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT INC: $20,750 · Public BenefitPROJECT ON GOVERN…SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $69,250 · Crime & LegalSOUTHERN POVE…MUTTVILLE: $46,250 · AnimalsMUTTVILLEEAST BAY SPCA: $12,000 · AnimalsEAST BAY SP…OAKWOOD SCHOOL: $34,500 · EducationOAKWOOD SC…PIEDMONT EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $12,500 · EducationPIEDMONT E…The Edible Schoolyard Project dba The Alice Waters Institute: $6,000 · EducationThe Edible…The Pad Project: $32,000 · InternationalALEXANDRIA HOUSE: $16,000 · Human ServicesMARC LUSTGARTEN PANCREATIC CANCER FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Human ServicesNOHO HOME ALLIANCE: $3,000 · Human Services
Other$238,324Public Benefit$85,750Crime & Legal$69,250Animals$58,250Education$53,000International$32,000Human Services$29,000

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 budgetSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $69,250 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetGovernment Accountability Project: $65,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetMUTTVILLE: $46,250 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetOAKWOOD SCHOOL: $34,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetThe Pad Project: $32,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetJHPIEGO CORPORATION: $24,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT INC: $20,750 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetALEXANDRIA HOUSE: $16,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetTrust Women Foundation Inc: $13,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetPIEDMONT EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $12,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetEAST BAY SPCA: $12,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNAPA COUNTY LAND TRUST: $10,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMARC LUSTGARTEN PANCREATIC CANCER FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetThe Edible Schoolyard Project dba The Alice Waters Institute: $6,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMcKinley Children's Center Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHARITIES AID FOUNDATION AMERICA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFriends of the Inyo: $4,600 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetALAMEDA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT ANGEL FOOD: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNOHO HOME ALLIANCE: $3,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBROWN BAG LADY: $2,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMUSICIANS ON CALL INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPIEDMONT FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 10.0% 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.

California Community …Vanguard Charitable E…American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…The Blackbaud Giving …The Bank of America C…Morgan Stanley Global…Paypal Charitable Giv…American Online Givin…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
California Community FoundationCA14.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: California Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Roach Maxam Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Roach Maxam Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 65%
  • Jhpiego Corporation: 65% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Roach Maxam 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