Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Hop & Mae Adams 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.

$579k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$226k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Community Improvement$1.8MHuman Services$340kFood & Nutrition$254kYouth Development$87kEducation$37kEmployment$20kArts & Culture$18k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $55k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $524k
$61,650
Median grant
2
States reached
$49M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Adams Northgate Inc$225,927
Adams Hub Inc$160,927
Greenhouse Project$75,584
Xquisite LLC$61,650
St Teresa of Avila Catholic School$25,000
Boys and Girls Club of Western Nevada$15,000
Carson City Chamber of Commerce$15,000
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 (FY23–24, $120k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Xquisite LLC: $60k → 13%Xquisite LLC: $60k → 13%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 64% of The Hop & Mae Adams Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 66% of the giving stays in ID; by stated purpose, 3%.

The Hop & Mae Adams Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 13 repeat orgs$81k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +27% since the first grant, against -21% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
4

Total granted

$2.5M
$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
-21%

Still filing today

62%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $62k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationEnvironmentArts & CultureOther
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

  • AN
    Adams Northgate Inc
    3× · 2023–2025 · $403k · revenue ×21 · 85% of their budget
  • TG
    THE GREENHOUSE PROJECT
    5× · 2021–2025 · $243k · revenue +27%
  • BA
    Boys and Girls Clubs of Western Nevada
    3× · 2022–2025 · $70k · revenue +387%

Funded once

  • SO
    State of Nevada Department of Education
    one grant, 2023 · $14k
  • CC
    Carson City Culture & Tourism Authority DBA Visit Carson City
    one grant, 2023 · $3k
  • CC
    CARSON CITY SCHOOLS FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $2k · revenue -21%
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
Healthy Nevada
Health
2
Nevada Agricultural Foundation
Food & Nutrition
3
Our Nevada Judges Inc
Education
4
Nevada Gold Mines Heritage Fund
Philanthropy
5
Nevada Peer Support Network Inc
Health
6
Cozad Development Corporation

Foster Business Development in Cozad, NE

—
7
Sage Valley Inc
Environment
8
The Nevada Bighorns Foundation
Education
9
Nevada Veterans Memorial Plaza

To honor and preserve the legacy of our fallen brothers and sisters who have given their life in service to our country since nevada became a state in 1864

Arts & Culture
10
Carson Chamber of Commerce

Economic Development

—
11
Association of Chinese-American Engineers and Scientists of New Mexico
Science & Tech
12
Northeastern Nevada Historical Soci

Northeastern nevada historcial society is dedicated to the preservation of the hertitage, culture, and natural history of northeastern nevada. our ongoing goals are to establish a western art center and nourish the western culture that…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Clubs of Western Nevada; the most unlike its peers is Adams Northgate Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 18 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Adams Hub Inc: $1,192,008 · Community ImprovementAdams Hub IncAdams Northgate Inc: $402,580 · Community ImprovementAdams Northgate IncNORTHERN NEVADA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: $170,000 · Community ImprovementNORTHERN NEVADA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYNEVADA STATE EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER INC: $158,737 · OtherNEVADA STATE EB-5…Boys and Girls Clubs of Western Nevada: $70,000 · OtherBoys and Girls Cl…Xquisite LLC: $61,650 · OtherXquisite LLCSt Teresa of Avila Catholic School: $35,000 · OtherSt Teresa of Avil…CARSON CITY AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $20,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $19,687 · OtherState of Nevada Department of Education: $13,550 · Other+4 more: $18,309 · OtherTHE GREENHOUSE PROJECT: $243,370 · EnvironmentTHE GREENH…XQUISITE: $120,000 · Human ServicesBASQUE MUSEUM & CULTURAL CENTER INC: $15,000 · Arts & CultureCARSON CITY SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $2,000 · Education
Community Improvement$1,764,588Other$396,933Environment$243,370Human Services$120,000Arts & Culture$15,000Education$2,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAdams Northgate Inc: $402,580 over 3y, 85% of budgetTHE GREENHOUSE PROJECT: $243,370 over 5y, 24% of budgetNORTHERN NEVADA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: $170,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetNEVADA STATE EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER INC: $158,737 over 3y, 100% of budgetXQUISITE: $120,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetBoys and Girls Clubs of Western Nevada: $70,000 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetCARSON CITY AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $20,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetBASQUE MUSEUM & CULTURAL CENTER INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCARSON CITY SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 1y, 2.4% 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 Adams Hub Inc ↗
  • Who funds Adams Northgate Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE GREENHOUSE PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN NEVADA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ↗
  • Who funds NEVADA STATE EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds XQUISITE ↗
  • Who funds Boys and Girls Clubs of Western Nevada ↗
  • Who funds CARSON CITY AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds BASQUE MUSEUM & CULTURAL CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CARSON CITY SCHOOLS 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 The Hop & Mae Adams Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Hop & Mae Adams Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s 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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 The Hop & Mae Adams Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Hop & Mae Adams 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 18 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 Hop & Mae Adams’ filings →

    More from the funding graph