· Private foundation
Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 69% of CAESAR KLEBERG FOUNDATION FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k4 grants · $72k
- $250k+2 grants · $3.2M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN | $2,907,000 |
| TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION | $250,000 |
| TEXAS FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION | $25,000 |
| CAESAR KLEBERG WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE | $24,000 |
| COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $12,500 |
| TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 26%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +23% since the first grant, against -34% for the ones you funded once.
14 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS2× · 2023–2024 · $600k · revenue +1%- TCTaking Care of Texas2× · 2019–2020 · $200k · revenue +339%
- ZSZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO2× · 2021–2022 · $127k · revenue +23%
Funded once
- STSouth Texas Charity Weekend Incone grant, 2019 · $150k · revenue -34%
- SPSOUTH PADRE BIRDING AND NATURE CENTone grant, 2022 · $20k
- RCROTARY CLUB HARVEY WEILone grant, 2017 · $10k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Texas water foundation is a statewide nonprofit that provides educational resources and educational services on water in texas for decision makers, water professionals, and everyday texans. texas water foundation works in the areas of…
We acquire properties to be donated to the National Park Service and state entities and advocate for protection of Big Thicket natural resources.
To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.
The texas wildlife association foundation, inc(twaf) increases natural resource literacy and promotes conservation and educational programs that connect texans to the land.
The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) works to sustain a resilient Texas by preserving coastal prairies, wetlands, farms, and ranches to benefit people and wildlife forever. Continued on Schedule OCPC conserves land, restores and enhances…
To support texas land trusts and promote land conservation efforts in texas. host texas land conservation conference to educate conservation related professionals and volunteers from across the state.
To support coastal conservation association in carrying out the charitable and educational purpose for which it was organized and is operated, namely, promoting and advancing the preservation, conservation and protection of marine, plant…
Texas Food & Wine Alliance is dedicated to fostering awareness and innovation in the Texas culinary community through grants, educational programing, and events.
The mission of the Hill Country Alliance is to bring together a diverse coalition of partners to preserve the open spaces, starry night skies, clean and abundant waters, and unique character of the Texas Hill Country.
The Foundation provides financial and other resources in support exclusively for Texas Agricultural Land Trust ("TALT"), a Texas tax exempt nonprofit corporation, classified as a 501(c)(3) organization.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas and the most unlike its peers is King High Historical Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2024, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 19 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Texas A&M University - Kingsville Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds Taking Care of Texas ↗
- Who funds KING HIGH HISTORICAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds South Texas Charity Weekend Inc ↗
- Who funds ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO ↗
- Who funds Texas Foundation for Conservation ↗
- Who funds COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Witte Museum ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: LAiglon Fund · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation?
Find your warmest path to Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation 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.