Skip to content
Buxton Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Buxton 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.

$14k
Granted FY2019
14
Grants FY2019
6
States reached
$5k
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.

Human Services$7kReligion$6kEnvironment$2kArts & Culture$1kInternational$1kHealth$200Housing & Shelter$200Public Benefit$100Other$0
02FY2019 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$23k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
URBAN MISSION$4,500
CHURCH OF THE SERVANT$3,700
WORLD NEIGHBORS$1,000
THE SALVATION ARMY$1,000
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF GUNNISION VALLEY$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH$1,000
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - TULSA$500
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT$200
OPERATION HOMEFRONT$100
MERCY SHIPS$100
PROJECT HOPE$100
MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER$100
CITY RESCUE MISSION$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 (FY18–19, $400) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%CITY RESCUE MISSION: $100 → 16%WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: $200 → 14%CITY RESCUE MISSION: $100 → 16%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
NJ
CO
VA
DC
OK
GA
TX
FL
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.

39%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7k · 3 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +145% since the first grant, against +78% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$7k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+145%
+78%

Still filing today

33%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19
InternationalHuman ServicesPublic BenefitHealthCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • THE URBAN MISSION INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $6k · revenue -5%
  • SA
    SALVATION ARMY
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1k
  • CITY RESCUE MISSION INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $200 · revenue +145%

Funded once

  • UC
    UNION CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • CB
    CRESTED BUTTE CENTER FOR THE ART
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • OC
    OKLAHOMA CITY PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA
    one grant, 2018 · $300
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
University Hospital & Clinics Inc

The organization provides medical care to improve, maintain, and restore the health of the people in the communities we serve.

Health
2
The Water Research Foundation

The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…

Environment
3
Waterorg

Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.

International
4
World Vision Inc

World vision, inc. is a christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice. (continued on schedule…

International
5
Uossm Usa

Uossm usas mission is to provide impartial lifesaving support, medical relief and access to quality healthcare and mental health services to people and communities affected by crisis.

Health
6
Bloodwater Mission Inc

Bloodwater mission, inc. (the organization) is a not-for-profit organization registered in nashville, tennessee that operates an international nonprofit that partners with african community-driven organizations to end water and hiv/aids…

Religion
7
Medical Teams International

Medical teams international is a christian humanitarian relief agency focused on providing life-saving medical care for people in crisis.

International
8
Devworks International

Devworks international is dedicated to a society where all people enjoy the freedom to pursue their own sustainable development. we contribute to this by strengthening the capacity of local organizations.

Human Services
9
Globus Relief

The mission of globus relief is to improve the delivery of healthcare worldwide by gathering, processing and distributing surplus medical and health supplies to charities at home and abroad.

International
10
Banner -University Medical Group

Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.

Health
11
Presbyterian Medical Services

Presbyterian medical services designs and delivers quality, integrated health, education, and human services in response to identified community needs of the multicultural people of the southwest.

Health
12
Human Rights Watch Inc

Human rights watch ("hrw") defends the rights of people worldwide. we scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. human rights watch is an independent,…

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wounded Warrior Project Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Urban Mission Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 21 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE URBAN MISSION INC: $5,500 · OtherTHE URBAN MISSION INCCHURCH OF THE SERVANT UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $3,700 · OtherCHURCH OF THE SERVANT UNITED METHODIST CHURCHSALVATION ARMY: $1,200 · OtherSALVATION ARMYUNION CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH: $1,000 · OtherUNION CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHWESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: $1,000 · OtherWESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCRESTED BUTTE CENTER FOR THE ART: $1,000 · OtherCRESTED BUTTE CENTER FOR THE ART+4 more: $1,100 · Other+4 moreCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE GUNNISON VALLEY: $2,000 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY F…WORLD NEIGHBORS INC: $1,000 · InternationalPROJECT HOPE - THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $100 · InternationalMercy Ships International: $100 · InternationalMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $100 · InternationalCITY RESCUE MISSION INC: $200 · Human ServicesWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC: $200 · Human ServicesJUDICIAL WATCH INC: $100 · Public BenefitOklahoma Medical Research Foundation: $100 · HealthOPERATION HOMEFRONT INC: $100 · Community Improvement
Other$15,500Philanthropy$2,000International$1,300Human Services$400Public Benefit$100Health$100Community Improvement$100

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE URBAN MISSION INC: $5,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWORLD NEIGHBORS INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCITY RESCUE MISSION INC: $200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetJUDICIAL WATCH INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT HOPE - THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMercy Ships International: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOklahoma Medical Research Foundation: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOPERATION HOMEFRONT INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $100 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.

Natl Christian Charit…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA9.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn 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 Buxton Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Buxton 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 31%
  • World Neighbors Inc: 46% of income from government
  • Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation: 31% of income from government
  • Wounded Warrior Project Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report 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.

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 21 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 Buxton’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