Skip to content

· Private foundation

Rochelle and Richard Maize Foundation

$42k
Granted FY2018
17
Grants FY2018
3
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Health$31kReligion$26kEducation$18kArts & Culture$7kPhilanthropy$6kHuman Services$5kInternational$4kYouth Development$4kOther$0
02FY2018 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$5k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$6,085
Individual grant recipient$6,000
CHASE FOUNDATION$5,000
ALLIANCE COLLEGE$4,000
Individual grant recipient$3,050
RAGS FOR RICHES FOUNDATION$2,800
LEAP FOUNDATION$2,500
JEWISH NATIONAL FUND$2,350
LUPUS LA$2,000
FRANKLIN PUBIC SCHOOL DEAN STONE$1,615
Cedar Sinai Medical Center$1,500
LOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR AGING$1,080
CHABAD OF BEL AIR$1,000
VISTA DEL MAR CHILD AND FAMILY SERV$1,000
HAMILTON HIGH SCHOOL$1,000
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 (FY17–17, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%SHARE: $4k → 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.
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.
$68k · 10 repeat orgs$29k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
7

Total granted

$68k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+89%

Still filing today

50%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $11k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
HealthArts & CultureHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • TC
    THE CHASE FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $11k · revenue +201%
  • CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +63%
  • LA
    LOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k · revenue +37%

Funded once

  • MA
    MUSEUM ASSOCIATESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $6k · revenue +89%
  • SI
    SHARE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $4k · revenue +67%
  • OM
    Other Miscellaneous Charities
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
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
University of Southern California

The central mission of the university of southern california is the development of human beings and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit. the principal means by which our mission is…

Education
2
Los Angeles Medical Center Foundation
Health
3
Doheny Eye Institute

To further the conservation, improvement and restoration of human eyesight" (mrs. doheny - 1947).

—
4
Los Angeles International Dance Festival
—
5
California Institute of Contemporary Art
—
6
Southern California University of Health Sciences

The mission of southern california university of health sciences (scu) is to educate students as competent, caring and successful practitioners of integrative healthcare. the university is committed to providing excellence in academics,…

Education
7
The Heart Foundation

The heart foundation (thf) was created to save lives from heart disease by increasing awareness, educating the public, and supporting innovative research at smidt heart institute at cedars-sinai medical center in los angeles, california.…

Philanthropy
8
The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

Stanford university is one of a select group of american universities that have achieved eminence in both undergraduate and graduate education and research - cont'd sch o.

Education
9
California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy

To harness the power of the human immune system and advanced computing technologies to create and translate scientific discoveries into next generation vaccines and therapies for prevention, control and cure of chronic diseases, enabling…

Health
10
Academy Museum Foundation

The academy museum of motion pictures advances the understanding, celebration, and preservation of cinema through inclusive and accessible exhibitions, screenings, programs, initiatives, and collections. welcoming visitors from los angeles…

Arts & Culture
11
Sutter Bay Hospitals

MISSION STATEMENT: MISSION: CARING FOR OUR PATIENTS FIRST AND OUR PEOPLE ALWAYS. VISION: TO BE THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED HEALTH SYSTEM FOR GETTING AND STAYING WELL. VALUES: EXCELLENCE - We deliver high-quality,…

Health
12
New York University

Nyu is a private university with approximately 60,000 matriculating students in 20 schools and institutes. nyu's primary missions are education, research and scholarship, and patient care.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Share Inc; the most unlike its peers is Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. 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

11 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. 11 of the 24 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $19,439 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $11,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCHABAD OF BEL AIR: $6,360 · OtherCHABAD OF BEL AIRRAGS FOR RICHES FOUNDATION: $5,600 · OtherRAGS FOR RICHES FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $4,350 · OtherIndividual grant recipientALLIANCE COLLEGE: $4,000 · OtherALLIANCE COLLEGEOther Miscellaneous Charities: $2,750 · OtherAMERICAN FREINDS OF MEGAN: $2,500 · Other+8 more: $9,070 · Other+8 moreTHE CHASE FOUNDATION: $11,000 · HealthTHE CHASE FOUNDATIONCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $4,500 · HealthCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL…LUPUS LA CO EMERGE: $2,275 · HealthLUPUS LA CO EMERGEMUSEUM ASSOCIATES: $5,500 · Arts & CultureJEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC: $4,100 · InternationalSHARE INC: $4,000 · Human ServicesTHE LEAP FOUNDATION INC: $2,500 · EducationLOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING: $1,580 · Community Improvement
Other$65,069Health$17,775Arts & Culture$5,500International$4,100Human Services$4,000Education$2,500Community Improvement$1,580

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 budgetTHE CHASE FOUNDATION: $11,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetRAGS FOR RICHES FOUNDATION: $5,600 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetCEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: $4,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC: $4,100 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSHARE INC: $4,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetTHE LEAP FOUNDATION INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING: $1,580 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFOR THE TROOPS: $930 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 THE CHASE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds RAGS FOR RICHES FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds MUSEUM ASSOCIATES ↗
  • Who funds CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH NATIONAL FUND (KEREN KAYEMETH LEISRAEL) INC ↗
  • Who funds SHARE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE LEAP FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds LUPUS LA CO EMERGE ↗
  • Who funds LOS ANGELES JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGING ↗
  • Who funds FOR THE TROOPS ↗
  • Who funds Inclusion Matters by Shanes Inspiration ↗

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.

Jewish Community Foundation of Los AngelesCA17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles · California Community Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable 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 Rochelle and Richard Maize Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rochelle and Richard Maize 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–5%
    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 24 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2018, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rochelle and Richard Maize’s filings →

    More from the funding graph