Skip to content
Anna W Thornton & Alexander P Thornton at a glance

· Private foundation

Anna W Thornton & Alexander P Thornton

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$91k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Human Services$166kEducation$151kHealth$71kRecreation & Sports$52kArts & Culture$47kHousing & Shelter$33kCrime & Legal$30kYouth Development$22kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k9 grants · $51k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $40k
$6,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SPECIAL OLYMPICS TEXAS INC$10,000
Big Brothers Big Sisters Lone Star$10,000
FORT WORTH PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION$10,000
WINGS OF A BUTTERFLY$10,000
HILL SCHOOL OF FORT WORTH INC$7,500
THE PARENTING CENTER$6,500
NATIONAL SOCIETY TO PREVENT BLINDNESS$6,500
FORT WORTH AREA HABITATFOR HUMANITY$5,000
CRAZY8 MINISTRIES$5,000
SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE$5,000
CASA OF TARRANT COUNTY$5,000
GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION$5,000
HOPE SUPPLY CO$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 (FY20–25, $111k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $5k → 11%HOPE SUPPLY CO: $5k → 14%GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $5k → 11%Community Partners of Tarrant County: $8k → 11%Community Partners of Tarrant County: $5k → 11%Arlington Charities Inc: $5k → 11%Mission Central Metroplex Inc: $5k → 11%THE PARENTING CENTER: $35k → 11%THE PARENTING CENTER: $20k → 11%THE PARENTING CENTER: $7k → 11%THE PARENTING CENTER: $7k → 11%THE PARENTING CENTER: $5k → 11%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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$465k · 15 repeat orgs$142k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +41% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
11

Total granted

$465k
$117k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
+1%

Still filing today

93%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationHealthHousing & ShelterRecreation & SportsArts & 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

  • TP
    THE PARENTING CENTER
    5× · 2020–2025 · $73k · revenue +53%
  • TS
    THE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $60k · revenue +45%
  • SO
    SPECIAL OLYMPICS OF TEXAS INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $52k · revenue +88%

Funded once

  • JC
    JEWEL CHARITY BALL INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2023 · $33k · revenue +2%
  • CH
    CASSATA HIGH SCHOOL
    one grant, 2018 · $20k
  • EV
    ESSILOR VISION FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2020 · $18k · revenue -77%
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
Partnerships for Children

To make tomorrow better than today by supporting and empowering children, youth, and families involved with child protective services.

Human Services
2
Central Texas Children's Home

To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.

Human Services
3
Texas Center for Child and Family Studies

To strengthen the lives of children and families.

Human Services
4
Dallas County Family Resource Center

The mission of Dallas County Family Resource Center is to provide programs to improve the quality of resources and well-being of the children and families in the community by intake, assessment, and referral of those in need to available…

Human Services
5
Texans Care for Children Inc

Texans Care for Children shapes public policies and brings Texans together to make children a statewide priority. We work so kids can have what they need to be healthy, secure, and thriving and so every Texan can have the best start to…

Crime & Legal
6
Casa of Williamson County Texas

CASA of Williamson County, TX exists to empower community volunteers to advocate for children who have experienced abuse or neglect to find loving, safe, and permanent homes.

Crime & Legal
7
Fort Worth Hope Center the Hope Center

The mission of the Fort Worth Hope Center is to fight hunger and feed hope by meeting peoples' immediate nutrition needs while also helping as many as possible to become self-sufficient. To this end, we provide both groceries and household…

Human Services
8
Dallas Services

The mission of Dallas Services is to enable individuals with disabilities and other special needs to achieve their potential by fostering community inclusiveness and independence.

—
9
Childrens Charities of Fort Worth

Provide christmas toys and school uniforms to children

Human Services
10
Ft Bend County Child Advocates Inc

Fort Bend County Child Advocates, Inc. provides a voice, heals the hurt and breaks the cycle of abuse and neglect for children in Fort Bend County.

Civil Rights
11
Texas Parent-to-Parent

Mission: Texas Parent to Parent is committed to improving the lives of Texas children who have disabilities, chronic or mental health conditions and/or other health care needs. We accomplish this by empowering families to be strong…

Human Services
12
Fort Worth Colonial Charities Inc (Fka Bfc Colonial Inc)

At fort worth colonial charities, we are dedicated to empowering the next generation through innovative educational, athletic, and enrichment programs supported by our investment. we believe in fostering not just skills, but confidence and…

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Casa of Tarrant County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Immunization Collaboration of Tarrant County. 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

25 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. 25 of the 30 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)
24/25
Grantees still filing
18/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Wings of a Butterfly: $29,500 · OtherWings of a ButterflyNEW DAY SERVICES FOR CHILD AND FAMILIES: $25,000 · OtherNEW DAY SERVICES FOR CHILD AND FAMILIE…CASSATA HIGH SCHOOL: $20,000 · OtherCASSATA HIGH SCHOOLESSILOR VISION FOUNDATION: $17,985 · OtherESSILOR VISION FOUNDATIONPrevent Blindness Georgia: $16,500 · OtherPrevent Blindness GeorgiaCHRISTIAN COMMUNITY STOREHOUSE INC: $15,000 · OtherCHRISTIAN COMMUNITY STOREHOUSE INCTHE FORT WORTH PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherTEXAS CENTER FOR ARTS AND: $7,000 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS LONE STAR: $22,322 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS LONE STARCASA OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $20,000 · OtherCASA OF TARRANT COUNTY INC+5 more: $24,500 · Other+5 moreTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $60,084 · EducationTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIAN…THE HILL SCHOOL OF FORT WORTH INC: $30,500 · EducationTHE HILL SCHOOL OF FOR…NEW KEY SCHOOL INC: $30,000 · EducationNEW KEY SCHOOL INCTHE PARENTING CENTER: $73,000 · Human ServicesTHE PARENTING CENTERCOMMUNITY PARTNERS OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $12,500 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY PARTNERS O…THE GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $10,000 · Human ServicesTHE GLADNEY CENTER F…HOPE SUPPLY CO: $5,000 · Human ServicesMission Central Metroplex Inc: $5,000 · Human ServicesARLINGTON CHARITIES INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesSPECIAL OLYMPICS OF TEXAS INC: $52,351 · Recreation & SportsSPECIAL O…JEWEL CHARITY BALL INCORPORATED: $33,000 · HealthARLINGTON PREGNANCY CENTER INC: $10,000 · HealthIMMUNIZATION COLLABORATION OF TARRANT COUNTY: $5,000 · HealthTEXAS CENTER FOR ARTS ACADEMICS: $40,000 · Arts & CultureDAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR HOMELESS: $28,250 · Community Improvement
Other$207,807Education$120,584Human Services$110,500Recreation & Sports$52,351Health$48,000Arts & Culture$40,000Community Improvement$28,250

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE PARENTING CENTER: $73,000 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $60,084 over 6y, 5.3% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS OF TEXAS INC: $52,351 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTEXAS CENTER FOR ARTS ACADEMICS: $40,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetJEWEL CHARITY BALL INCORPORATED: $33,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetTHE HILL SCHOOL OF FORT WORTH INC: $30,500 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetNEW KEY SCHOOL INC: $30,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetWings of a Butterfly: $29,500 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetDAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR HOMELESS: $28,250 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS LONE STAR: $22,322 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCASA OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetESSILOR VISION FOUNDATION: $17,985 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPrevent Blindness Georgia: $16,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetCHRISTIAN COMMUNITY STOREHOUSE INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetCOMMUNITY PARTNERS OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $12,500 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetARLINGTON PREGNANCY CENTER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetIMMUNIZATION COLLABORATION OF TARRANT COUNTY: $5,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetMission Central Metroplex Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCRAZY8 MINISTRIES INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetARLINGTON CHARITIES INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF TARRANT COUNTY: $3,000 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.

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.

Thomas M Helen McKee …Communities Foundatio…Sid W Richardson Foun…Helen Irwin Littauer …Community Foundation …Ann L Rhodes and Caro…Bnsf Railway Foundati…Edith Winther Grace C…Garvey Texas Foundati…Amon G Carter Foundat…Wm & Catherine Bryce …Crystelle Waggoner Ch…
Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation IncTX36.6× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation Inc · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Sid W Richardson Foundation · Helen Irwin Littauer Educational Trust · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Ann L Rhodes and Carol Greene Rhodes · Bnsf Railway Foundation · Edith Winther Grace Charitable Trust · Garvey Texas Foundation Inc · Amon G Carter Foundation · Wm & Catherine Bryce Memorial Fund Xxxxx3001 · Crystelle Waggoner Charitable Trust

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 Anna W Thornton & Alexander P Thornton funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Anna W Thornton & Alexander P Thornton. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report 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 30 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 Anna W Thornton & Alexander P Thornton’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