Skip to content
Barksdale Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Barksdale Family Foundation

Its FY2019 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$98k
Granted FY2019
18
Grants FY2019
4
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2019.

Religion$86kEducation$18kHealth$14kArts & Culture$13kInternational$10kPhilanthropy$9kHousing & Shelter$8kYouth Development$3kOther$0
02FY2019 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2019

  • Under $10k16 grants · $48k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
$3,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD$40,000
KAMUKAMA FOUNDATION$10,000
NEXT STEP$8,000
HOSPICE OF MIDLAND$5,000
HOSPICE AUSTIN$5,000
DREAMLAND$5,000
DISCOVERY LAND COMPANY FOUNDATION$4,000
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN$4,000
SMILE TRAIN$3,000
COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS$2,600
THE FRONT PORCH PROJECT$2,500
DREAMLAND FOUNDATION - NANTUCKET$2,500
NANTUCKET PRESERVATION TRUST$2,000
SUSTAINABLE NANTUCKET$1,500
Individual grant recipient$1,500
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 (FY18–19, $9k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%HOSPICE AUSTIN: $5k → 10%HELPING HAND HOME FOR CHILDREN: $3k → 10%THE FLATWATER FOUNDATION: $1k → 10%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.

10%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18k · 3 repeat orgs$161k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
12

Total granted

$18k
$71k

Still filing today

0%
42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 9% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19
Human ServicesPhilanthropyArts & CultureInternationalHousing & ShelterEducationOther
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

  • TF
    THE FRONT PORCH PROJECT
    2× · 2018–2019 · $8k
  • D
    DREAMLAND
    2× · 2018–2019 · $8k
  • TT
    THE TRAIL FOUNDATION
    2× · 2018–2019 · $2k

Funded once

  • GS
    GOOD SHEPHERD EPISCOPAL CHURCH
    one grant, 2018 · $40k
  • SP
    ST PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
    one grant, 2018 · $6k
  • IL
    I LIVE HERE I GIVE HERE
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue -24%
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
Nantucket Conservation Foundation Inc

The nantucket conservation foundation owns, protects, and stewards over 9,000 acres of land and coastal shoreline, conserves nantucket's rare and significant natural resources, and engages in impactful ecological research to inform…

Environment
2
Hospice of South Texas Inc

Hospice care of terminally ill patients

—
3
Central Maine Healthcare Corporation

To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustful environment through the expertise, committment, and compassion of our family of caregivers.

Health
4
The Northern Michigan University Foundation

The nmu foundation will establish and foster relationships to generate resources that benefit the strategic goals of northern michigan university.

Education
5
Brighton Marine Inc

Brighton marine, inc. provides military and veteran families with comprehensive campus-based quality health care, as well as affordable and supportive housing for at-risk veterans and their families.

Health
6
Hospice Austin Fund

The fund is a type 1 supporting organization of hospice austin. assets of the fund are used for maintenance, support, and operations of hospice austin programs.

—
7
Union Health System

To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.

Health
8
Boston Architectural College

The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.

—
9
Good Samaritan Hospice Inc

It is the mission of good samaritan hospice to affirm life in the midst of illness and grief. we accomplish this objective by providing quality patient care, family support, community education and counseling services through an…

Health
10
Texas Alliance for Patient Access

Preserve access to quality healthcare for all texans

Community Improvement
11
Hospice Maui Inc

To provide medical, nursing, counseling and other supportive services necessary for individuals with life-limiting illnesses and their families.

Human Services
12
Connecticut Farmland Trust Inc

Protect Connecticuts farmland for agricultural use by purchasing and accepting donations of agricultural conservation easements

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hospice Austin; the most unlike its peers is Kamukama Foundation. 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

13 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. 13 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD: $40,000 · OtherEPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERDGOOD SHEPHERD EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $40,000 · OtherGOOD SHEPHERD EPISCOPAL CHURCHNEXT STEP: $8,000 · OtherNEXT STEPTHE FRONT PORCH PROJECT: $8,000 · OtherTHE FRONT PORCH PROJECTDREAMLAND: $7,500 · OtherST PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $6,000 · OtherHOSPICE OF MIDLAND INC: $5,000 · Other+13 more: $27,600 · Other+13 moreKAMUKAMA FOUNDATION: $10,000 · InternationalI LIVE HERE I GIVE HERE: $5,000 · PhilanthropyTHE DISCOVERY LAND COMPANY FOUNDATION: $4,000 · PhilanthropyHOSPICE AUSTIN: $5,000 · Human ServicesHELPING HAND HOME FOR CHILDREN INC: $2,500 · Human ServicesTHE FLATWATER FOUNDATON: $1,000 · Human ServicesBREAKTHROUGH: $5,000 · EducationNANTUCKET PRESERVATION TRUST INC: $2,000 · Arts & CultureThe Ballroom Cultural Arts Foundation: $250 · Arts & CultureNANTUCKET SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $1,500 · Housing & Shelter
Other$142,100International$10,000Philanthropy$9,000Human Services$8,500Education$5,000Arts & Culture$2,250Housing & Shelter$1,500

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 budgetKAMUKAMA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetI LIVE HERE I GIVE HERE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHOSPICE AUSTIN: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBREAKTHROUGH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHOSPICE OF MIDLAND INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE DISCOVERY LAND COMPANY FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHELPING HAND HOME FOR CHILDREN INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNANTUCKET PRESERVATION TRUST INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNANTUCKET SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $1,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNANTUCKET ATHENEUM INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FLATWATER FOUNDATON: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetThe Ballroom Cultural Arts Foundation: $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.

National Philanthropi…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA12.2× affinity7 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Barksdale Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Barksdale Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get 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 · 0–10%
    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.

    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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Barksdale Family’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