Skip to content
Roth-Armstrong-Hayes Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Roth-Armstrong-Hayes Foundation

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.

$176k
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Animals$280kHuman Services$253kFood & Nutrition$155kInternational$126kReligion$120kHealth$100kEmployment$100kRecreation & Sports$60kOther$0
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k9 grants · $56k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $120k
$10,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CATHOLIC CHARITIES$20,000
MIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION$15,000
REDWOOD GOSPEL MISSION$15,000
CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE$15,000
REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK$15,000
PEORIA PARK DISTRICT FOUNDATION$10,000
MIDWEST FOOD BANK$10,000
SNAP CATS$10,000
CRITTENTON CENTER$10,000
ALBANY HIGH SCHOOL$8,000
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS$7,500
PAWS FOR PURPLE HEARTS$7,500
UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF$7,500
LEWY BODY DEMENTIA ASSOCIATION$5,000
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY$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 (FY17–24, $123k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MIDWEST FOOD BANK: $10k → 11%CRITTENTON CENTER: $10k → 14%MIDWEST FOOD BANK: $10k → 11%CRITTENTON CENTER: $10k → 14%MIDWEST FOOD BANK: $10k → 11%CRITTENTON CENTER: $10k → 14%MIDWEST FOOD BANK: $5k → 11%CRITTENTON CENTER: $10k → 14%MIDWEST FOOD BANK: $5k → 11%CRITTENTON CENTER: $10k → 14%MIDWEST FOOD BANK: $5k → 11%CRITTENTON CENTER: $10k → 14%CRITTENTON CENTER: $10k → 14%CRITTENTON CENTER: $8k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 24 repeat orgs$5k to everyone else

24 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
1

Total granted

$1.4M
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+72%
+287%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesAnimalsInternationalHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • RG
    REDWOOD GOSPEL MISSIONS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $120k · revenue +306%
  • CC
    CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $115k · revenue +76%
  • RE
    REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK
    8× · 2017–2024 · $110k · revenue +118%

Funded once

  • TS
    The Society of St Vincent de Paul District Council of Sonoma County Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +287%
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
Rancho Coastal Humane Society

See schedule orancho coastal is dedicated to the rescue and shelter of abandoned companion animals. it encourages adoptions into loving homes and provides educational and community outreach programs designed to enhance the human-animal…

Animals
2
Marin Humane Society

Marin humane transforms lives through exceptional animal care, humane education, and advocacy. every day, marin humane inspires compassion and positive relationships between people and animals.

Animals
3
Santa Barbara Humane Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Santa barbara humane operates two campuses located in santa barbara and santa maria providing care for community-owned and homeless animals. both campuses offer affordable high quality veterinary care, compassionate behavior training…

Animals
4
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Monterey County

The SPCA Monterey County's Mission is assuring compassionate treatment of all animals through rescue, rehabilitation, protection and education. The SPCA shelters homeless, neglected, and abused pets, including dogs, cats, horses, exotic…

Animals
5
Animal Samaritans

At Animal Samaritans we champion compassion and respect for all living creatures, with a primary focus on dogs, cats, and the people who love them. We view pets not merely as animals, but as members of our families. As their guardians and…

Animals
6
Pet Orphans of Southern California

In addition to rescue and adoption, pet orphans provides a wide range of services including education, medical/financial, spay/neuter, and training assistance.

Animals
7
Pets Lifeline Inc

Pets Lifeline is dedicated to protecting and improving the lives of cats and dogs in need in Sonoma Valley through sheltering and adoption, humane education, and community programs.

Animals
8
Mendocino Coast Humane Society

Caring for homeless animals, and finding homes for them through pet adoptions.

Animals
9
The Humane Society for Seattleking County

Seattle humane promotes the human-animal bond by saving and serving pets in need, regardless of age, ability, circumstance or geography.

Animals
10
Santa Maria Valley Humane Society

The santa maria valley humane society exists to rescue, shelter, heal, place, and train dogs and cats while engaging the central california coastal community to end animal homelessness.

—
11
Central California Food Bank

Ccfb is dedicated to ending hunger, working with over 200 partner agencies to provide food to those experiencing hunger. our mission: transforming lives together, in the passionate pursuit to end hunger in central ca - one meal, one…

Food & Nutrition
12
Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

For more than 132 years, the sacramento spca has worked to reduce pet overpopulation through affordable spay/neuter services, promote humane treatment of animals through education and outreach, and keep pets and their families together for…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Canine Companions for Independence Inc; the most unlike its peers is Snap Cats. 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

19 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. 19 of the 26 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)
18/19
Grantees still filing
14/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Catholic Charities San Bernardino & Riverside Counties: $160,000 · OtherCatholic Charities San Bernardino & Riverside C…PEORIA PARK DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $60,000 · OtherPEORIA PARK DISTRICT FOUNDATIONALBANY HIGH SCHOOL: $53,250 · OtherALBANY HIGH SCHOOLHABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $42,500 · OtherHABITAT FOR HUMANITYAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: $40,000 · OtherAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETYALZHEIMER'S ASSN - GREATER SAN FRAN: $30,000 · OtherFELINE CONSERVATION CENTER: $30,000 · OtherPAWS FOR PURPLE HEARTS: $57,500 · OtherPAWS FOR PURPLE HEARTSTHE FIRST RESPONSE TEAM OF AMERICA CORP: $40,000 · OtherTHE FIRST RESPONSE TEAM OF AMERICA CORPLewy Body Dementia Association Inc: $30,000 · Other+4 more: $37,500 · Other+4 moreCANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC: $115,000 · Human ServicesCANINE COMPANIONS F…CRITTENTON CENTERS: $77,500 · Human ServicesCRITTENTON CENTERSMIDWEST FOOD BANK NFP: $45,000 · Human ServicesMIDWEST FOOD BANK N…UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $75,000 · InternationalUNITED STA…MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $50,500 · InternationalMEDECINS S…SNAP Cats: $65,000 · AnimalsSNAP CatsCOMPASSION WITHOUT BORDERS: $30,000 · AnimalsCOMPASSION…HUMANE SOCIETY OF SONOMA COUNTY: $30,000 · AnimalsHUMANE SOC…REDWOOD GOSPEL MISSIONS: $120,000 · Housing & ShelterREDWOOD G…REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $110,000 · Food & NutritionMIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION: $87,500 · PhilanthropyHAWAII COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Other$580,750Human Services$237,500International$125,500Animals$125,000Housing & Shelter$120,000Food & Nutrition$110,000Philanthropy$92,500

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 budgetCatholic Charities San Bernardino & Riverside Counties: $160,000 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetREDWOOD GOSPEL MISSIONS: $120,000 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetCANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC: $115,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetREDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK: $110,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetMIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION: $87,500 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetCRITTENTON CENTERS: $77,500 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $75,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetSNAP Cats: $65,000 over 7y, 4.1% of budgetPAWS FOR PURPLE HEARTS: $57,500 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $50,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetMIDWEST FOOD BANK NFP: $45,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FIRST RESPONSE TEAM OF AMERICA CORP: $40,000 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetCOMPASSION WITHOUT BORDERS: $30,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetLewy Body Dementia Association Inc: $30,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF SONOMA COUNTY: $30,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF THE REDWOOD EMPIRE: $12,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPetaluma Animal Services Foundation: $10,000 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetThe Society of St Vincent de Paul District Council of Sonoma County Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHAWAII COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $5,000 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 Catholic Charities San Bernardino & Riverside Counties ↗
  • Who funds REDWOOD GOSPEL MISSIONS ↗
  • Who funds CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC ↗
  • Who funds REDWOOD EMPIRE FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds MIKEROWEWORKS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CRITTENTON CENTERS ↗
  • Who funds UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
  • Who funds SNAP Cats ↗
  • Who funds PAWS FOR PURPLE HEARTS ↗
  • Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
  • Who funds MIDWEST FOOD BANK NFP ↗
  • Who funds THE FIRST RESPONSE TEAM OF AMERICA CORP ↗
  • Who funds COMPASSION WITHOUT BORDERS ↗
  • Who funds Lewy Body Dementia Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY OF SONOMA COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF THE REDWOOD EMPIRE ↗
  • Who funds Petaluma Animal Services Foundation ↗
  • Who funds The Society of St Vincent de Paul District Council of Sonoma County Inc ↗
  • Who funds HAWAII COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗

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.

McNabb FoundationSonoma County Communi…American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…Network for GoodNatl Christian Charit…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
McNabb FoundationDE15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: McNabb Foundation · Sonoma County Community Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · 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 Roth-Armstrong-Hayes Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Roth-Armstrong-Hayes 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 Roth-Armstrong-Hayes Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Roth-Armstrong-Hayes 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 26 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $205k of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Roth-Armstrong-Hayes’ 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