Skip to content
Tam Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Tam 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.

$92k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$53k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Arts & Culture$246kPhilanthropy$90kHuman Services$50kCommunity Improvement$30kReligion$26kEducation$17kHealth$8kRecreation & Sports$100Other$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $53k
$7,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$682k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
RAISE THE ROOF FOR THE ARTS$53,250
SIDNEY-SHELBY COUNTY YMCA$30,000
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH$7,000
WILSON HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$1,100
THE UNITED WAY OF SHELBY COUNTY$705
SHELBY COUNTY ANIMAL RESCUE$100
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 (FY18–25, $55k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 9% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%OHIO LIVING FOUNDATION: $5k → 15%SIDNEY-SHELBY COUNTY YMCA: $30k → 9%NEW CHOICES INC: $20k → 9%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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$350k · 8 repeat orgs$96k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
17

Total granted

$350k
$65k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+10%

Still filing today

50%
47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k 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
Arts & CultureHuman ServicesHealthEducationOther
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

  • RT
    RAISE THE ROOF FOR THE ARTS
    8× · 2018–2025 · $208k · revenue +50%
  • WH
    WINIFRED HAUN & DANCERS
    3× · 2020–2024 · $2k · revenue +37%
  • TE
    THE EDISON FOUNDATION
    2× · 2019–2022 · $2k · revenue +76%

Funded once

  • NC
    NEW CHOICES INC
    one grant, 2018 · $20k · revenue +23%
  • OW
    OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITYgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $10k · revenue +44%
  • SP
    ST PAUL'S UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
    one grant, 2023 · $7k
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
Shelby County United Way

Shelby county united way, inc. conducts an annual fund raising campaign to provide funding to human service organizations in shelby county. our mission is to continually identify, evaluate and make possible the human services needed in our…

—
2
Sidney Health Center

To help those we serve achieve their highest level of health and well-being.

Health
3
Shelby Community Foundation

To aid in the fulfillment of the charitable functions of the shelby township, mi community.

—
4
Shelby County Historical Society

Operation of shelby county historical museum.

—
5
Community Improvement Corporation of Shelby Ohio

Providing an inclusive public private community partnership invested in growth for city of shelby ohio.

Community Improvement
6
Shelby County Chamber of Commerce Inc

We advocate for business growth and support the success of our members while collaborating with partners to promote shelby county as a highly desirable community in which to live, work, and play.

—
7
Senior Center of Sidney-Shelby County

Activity center for senior citizens

Human Services
8
Cuyahoga Community College Foundation

The mission of the cuyahoga community college foundation is to provide resources for advancing student success at cuyahoga community college and to transform the lives of those tri-c serves. (continued on schedule o)

Education
9
Shelby County Development Corp

Development of business community in shelby county.

—
10
The Christ Hospital

Improve the health of our community and create patient value by providing exceptional outcomes and the finest experiences, all in an affordable way.

Health
11
Shelby Automotive Foundation
Arts & Culture
12
Shadoart Productions Inc

We use the power of live performance art to create a unified expression of joy that is shared within our community through engaged educational programming, enhanced corporate partnerships, and inspired civic givebacks. see schedule o for…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ohio Living Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Winifred Haun & Dancers. 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

15 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. 15 of the 29 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)
14/15
Grantees still filing
9/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RAISE THE ROOF FOR THE ARTS: $208,350 · Arts & CultureRAISE THE ROOF FOR THE ARTS+2 more: $6,300 · Arts & CultureCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SHELBY CO: $115,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SHELBY COFIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: $19,000 · OtherFIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHST PAUL'S UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST: $6,800 · Other+16 more: $19,096 · Other+16 moreYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SIDNEY & SHELBY COUNTY: $30,000 · Human ServicesYOUNG MEN'S C…NEW CHOICES INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesNEW CHOICES I…OHIO LIVING FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesOHIO LIVING F…COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SHELBY COUNTY: $21,300 · PhilanthropyOHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY: $10,000 · EducationPINK RIBBON GOOD INC: $5,000 · HealthCOMPASSIONATE CARE OF SHELBY COUNTY INC: $1,050 · Health
Arts & Culture$214,650Other$159,896Human Services$55,000Philanthropy$21,300Education$10,000Health$6,050

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 budgetRAISE THE ROOF FOR THE ARTS: $208,350 over 8y, 14% of budgetYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SIDNEY & SHELBY COUNTY: $30,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SHELBY COUNTY: $21,300 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNEW CHOICES INC: $20,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetOHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOHIO LIVING FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSHELBY COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetPINK RIBBON GOOD INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWINIFRED HAUN & DANCERS: $1,800 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetTHE EDISON FOUNDATION: $1,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCOMPASSIONATE CARE OF SHELBY COUNTY INC: $1,050 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF LOGAN COUNTY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWILSON HEALTH FOUNDATION: $390 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetELMHURST UNIVERSITY: $250 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.

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.

Community Foundation …First Bank Richmond I…The Blackbaud Giving …Morgan Stanley Global…Natl Christian Charit…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation of Shelby CountyOH22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Shelby County · First Bank Richmond Inc Community Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn 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 Tam Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tam Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    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 29 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 Tam’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