Skip to content

· Private foundation

Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$3.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$2.9M
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$23MEnvironment$800kAnimals$723kPhilanthropy$240kArts & Culture$208k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $72k
  • $250k+2 grants · $3.2M
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$65M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 26%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SAN DIEGO ZOO GLOBAL: $87k → 11%TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 7%TEXAS FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION: $40k → 10%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $350k → 14%WITTE MUSEUM: $18k → 16%COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $20k → 17%SOUTH PADRE BIRDING AND NATURE CENT: $20k → 23%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $3.6M → 27%SAN DIEGO ZOO GLOBAL: $40k → 11%THE FOREVER FOUNDATION FOR TEXAS: $10k → 7%TEXAS FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION: $30k → 10%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $250k → 14%WITTE MUSEUM: $10k → 16%COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $13k → 17%TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $3.2M → 27%THE FOREVER FOUNDATION FOR TEXAS: $10k → 7%TAKING CARE OF TEXAS: $100k → 10%SAN ANTONIO ZOO CENTER FOR CONSERVA: $40k → 16%COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $3.1M → 27%TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 7%TEXAS FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION: $25k → 10%SAN ANTONIO ZOO CENTER FOR CONSERVA: $20k → 16%COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $3.0M → 27%TAKING CARE OF TEXAS: $100k → 10%DUCKS UNLIMITED: $5k → 16%ROTARY CLUB HARVEY WEIL: $10k → 17%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $2.9M → 27%TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATI: $121k → 16%COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $8k → 17%TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $2.9M → 27%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE: $60k → 16%TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $2.8M → 27%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE: $50k → 16%TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $1.9M → 27%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE: $40k → 16%SOUTH TEXAS CHARITY WEEKEND: $150k → 27%TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATI: $10k → 16%CAESAR KLEBERG WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $81k → 27%TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION FOUNDATI: $10k → 16%TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $25k → 27%CAESAR KLEBERG WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $24k → 27%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$25M · 14 repeat orgs$185k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +23% since the first grant, against -34% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
4

Total granted

$25M
$185k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+23%
-34%

Still filing today

43%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentArts & CultureAnimalsEducationPhilanthropyOther
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

  • PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
    2× · 2023–2024 · $600k · revenue +1%
  • TC
    Taking Care of Texas
    2× · 2019–2020 · $200k · revenue +339%
  • ZS
    ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO
    2× · 2021–2022 · $127k · revenue +23%

Funded once

  • ST
    South Texas Charity Weekend Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $150k · revenue -34%
  • SP
    SOUTH PADRE BIRDING AND NATURE CENT
    one grant, 2022 · $20k
  • RC
    ROTARY CLUB HARVEY WEIL
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
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
Texas Water Foundation

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…

Environment
2
Texas Prairieland Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Big Thicket Natural Heritage Trust

We acquire properties to be donated to the National Park Service and state entities and advocate for protection of Big Thicket natural resources.

Environment
4
Texas a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
5
Foundation for Tx Wildlife

The texas wildlife association foundation, inc(twaf) increases natural resource literacy and promotes conservation and educational programs that connect texans to the land.

Animals
6
Coastal Prairie Conservancy

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…

Environment
7
Texas Land Trust Council

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.

Environment
8
Houston Geological Society Foundation
—
9
Cca Texas Fund

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…

Environment
10
Texas Food & Wine Alliance fka Austin F&W Alliance

Texas Food & Wine Alliance is dedicated to fostering awareness and innovation in the Texas culinary community through grants, educational programing, and events.

—
11
Hill Country Alliance

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.

Environment
12
Texas Agricultural Land Trust Foundation

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.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas; 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.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 19 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)
8/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN: $16,923,515 · OtherTEXAS AM UNIVERSITY KINGSVILLE FDN+9 more: $531,000 · OtherTexas A&M University - Kingsville Foundation Inc: $6,487,500 · EducationTexas A&M University - Kings…PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $600,000 · EnvironmentTaking Care of Texas: $200,000 · EnvironmentZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO: $127,000 · AnimalsTexas Foundation for Conservation: $95,000 · AnimalsSouth Texas Charity Weekend Inc: $150,000 · PhilanthropyCOASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $60,000 · PhilanthropyKING HIGH HISTORICAL FOUNDATION: $180,000 · Arts & CultureWitte Museum: $27,500 · Arts & Culture
Other$17,454,515Education$6,487,500Environment$800,000Animals$222,000Philanthropy$210,000Arts & Culture$207,500

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 budgetTexas A&M University - Kingsville Foundation Inc: $6,487,500 over 2y, 21% of budgetPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $600,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetTaking Care of Texas: $200,000 over 2y, 8.7% of budgetSouth Texas Charity Weekend Inc: $150,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO: $127,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTexas Foundation for Conservation: $95,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetCOASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetWitte Museum: $27,500 over 2y, 0.3% 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 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 ↗

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.

LAiglon FundTX13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: LAiglon Fund · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%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
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 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.

    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 19 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Caesar Kleberg Foundation for Wildlife Conservation’s filings →

    More from the funding graph