Skip to content
Robert W & Maxine C Parker Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Robert W & Maxine C Parker Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$234k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Human Services$458kHealth$228kFood & Nutrition$207kEducation$187kReligion$186kArts & Culture$182kEnvironment$84kAnimals$31kOther$0
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k9 grants · $39k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $145k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$5,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$2.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS$50,000
LIVINGSTON NUTRITION PROGRAM$30,000
LOVE INC$20,000
FAMILY IMPACT CENTER$20,000
CLEARY UNIVERSITY$20,000
LIVINGSTON ARTS COUNCIL$20,000
SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN$20,000
LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC$15,000
BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH$5,000
MICHIGAN SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION$5,000
BOYS TOWN$5,000
GREAT START COLLABORATIVE$5,000
THE ARC LIVINGSTON$5,000
TOYS FOR TOTS$5,000
BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS$4,000
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 (FY17–25, $434k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 8% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BOYS TOWN: $5k → 12%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $25k → 5%BOYS TOWN: $5k → 12%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $20k → 5%MICHIGAN MASONIC HOME: $5k → 12%BOYS TOWN: $5k → 12%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $20k → 5%BOYS TOWN: $5k → 12%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $20k → 5%MICHIGAN MASONIC HOME: $5k → 12%BOYS TOWN: $5k → 12%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $20k → 5%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $20k → 5%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $15k → 5%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $15k → 5%FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $15k → 5%BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS: $10k → 5%BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS: $5k → 5%BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS: $4k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $30k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $30k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $25k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $20k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $20k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $20k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $20k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $15k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $10k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $10k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC: $10k → 5%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 25 repeat orgs$156k to everyone else

25 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
14

Total granted

$1.5M
$124k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+17%
+44%

Still filing today

52%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $32k 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
Human ServicesEducationHealthYouth DevelopmentFood & NutritionReligionOther
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

  • LC
    LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CHARITIES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $210k · revenue +1%
  • FI
    FAMILY IMPACT CENTER
    9× · 2017–2025 · $170k · revenue +114%
  • LA
    LIVINGSTON ARTS COUNCIL INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $152k · revenue +84% · 56% of their budget

Funded once

  • SJ
    ST JOSEPH MERCY LIVINGSTON
    one grant, 2021 · $25k
  • FP
    FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
    one grant, 2024 · $20k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $12k
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
Mclaren Greater Lansing

Mclaren health care corporation, along with its subsidiaries, will be michigan's best value in healthcare as defined by quality outcomes and cost.

Health
2
Mclaren Northern Michigan

Mclaren health care, through its subsidiaries, will be the best value in health care as defined by quality outcomes and cost.

Health
3
Mclaren Port Huron

Mclaren healthcare, through its subsidiaries, will be the best value in healthcare as defined by quality outcomes and cost.

Health
4
Mercy Health Partners

We, mercy health and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities.mercy health partners is a member of mercy health and trinity health.

—
5
Vitalcare Inc

To provide healthcare as you would expect for your own family.

—
6
Trinity Continuing Care Services

We, trinity senior living communities and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities.trinity continuing care services (d/b/a trinity health senior…

Health
7
Mymichigan Medical Center Midland

Creating healthy communities - together

Health
8
Loyola University Medical Center

We, loyola university health system and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities.lumc is a member of loyola university health system and trinity…

Health
9
St Joseph Mercy Chelsea Inc

We, st. joseph mercy chelsea and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities. st. joseph mercy chelsea is a member of trinity health - michigan and…

Health
10
Laborers International Union of State of Mi

Collective bargaining and representation

—
11
Mymichigan Medical Group

Creating healthy communities - together

Health
12
Michigan Humane Society

To improve and save lives through compassionate care, community engagement and advocacy for animals.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Livingston County Catholic Charities; the most unlike its peers is The Torch. 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

20 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. 20 of the 43 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/20
Grantees still filing
12/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LIVINGSTON NUTRITION PROGRAM: $205,000 · OtherLIVINGSTON NUTRITION PROGRAMHOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $147,000 · OtherHOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOLSHOWELL CONFERENCE AND NATURE CTR: $84,300 · OtherHOWELL CONFERENCE AND NATURE CTRLOVE INC: $79,500 · OtherLOVE INCFIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF HOWELL: $50,000 · OtherFIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF HOWELLTHE ARC LIVINGSTON: $35,000 · OtherHOWELL AREA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $30,000 · Other+23 more: $230,684 · Other+23 moreLIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $210,000 · Human ServicesLIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CH…FAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $169,500 · Human ServicesFAMILY IMPACT CENTERFather Flanagan's Boys' Home: $25,000 · Human ServicesFather Flanagan's Boys' HomeBLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS INC: $19,000 · Human Services+1 more: $10,000 · Human ServicesLIVINGSTON ARTS COUNCIL INC: $152,000 · EducationLIVINGSTON A…Livingston Christian Schools: $20,000 · EducationLivingston C…CLEARY UNIVERSITY: $20,000 · EducationCLEARY UNIVE…SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $117,500 · HealthSHRINERS HO…TRINITY HEALTH - MICHIGAN: $50,000 · HealthTRINITY HEA…MARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION: $12,000 · PhilanthropyMichigan Masonic Charitable Foundation: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentCHRISTIAN RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL: $6,500 · Religion
Other$861,484Human Services$433,500Education$192,000Health$167,500Philanthropy$12,000Youth Development$10,000Religion$6,500

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 budgetLIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $210,000 over 9y, 1.4% of budgetFAMILY IMPACT CENTER: $169,500 over 9y, 23% of budgetLIVINGSTON ARTS COUNCIL INC: $152,000 over 7y, 56% of budgetSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $117,500 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTRINITY HEALTH - MICHIGAN: $50,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ARC LIVINGSTON: $35,000 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetFather Flanagan's Boys' Home: $25,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetLivingston Christian Schools: $20,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetCLEARY UNIVERSITY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS INC: $19,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetMARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION: $12,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Michigan: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetMichigan Masonic Charitable Foundation: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMichigan Masonic Home: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCHRISTIAN RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL: $6,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetThe American Legion: $5,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetALWAYS HOPE ANIMAL RESCUE: $4,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetMARINE CORPS LEAGUE INC: $4,000 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 LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CHARITIES ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY IMPACT CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LIVINGSTON ARTS COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds TRINITY HEALTH - MICHIGAN ↗
  • Who funds THE ARC LIVINGSTON ↗
  • Who funds Father Flanagan's Boys' Home ↗
  • Who funds Livingston Christian Schools ↗
  • Who funds CLEARY UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS INC ↗
  • Who funds MARINE TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds University of Michigan ↗
  • Who funds Michigan Masonic Charitable Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Michigan Masonic Home ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTIAN RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds The American Legion ↗
  • Who funds ALWAYS HOPE ANIMAL RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds MARINE CORPS LEAGUE 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Edward and June Kello…Ted and Jane Von Voig…Positive Step Foundat…Community Foundation …American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Edward and June Kellogg Foundation Dba Kellogg Family FoundationMI17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Edward and June Kellogg Foundation Dba Kellogg Family Foundation · Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation · Positive Step Foundation Inc · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · 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 Robert W & Maxine C Parker Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Robert W & Maxine C Parker Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 43 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 Robert W & Maxine C Parker’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