Skip to content
Char Tua M H Wood & H G Wood at a glance

· Private foundation

Char Tua M H Wood & H G Wood

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$32k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$87kHuman Services$81kReligion$43kHousing & Shelter$28kInternational$10kFood & Nutrition$10kEducation$8kRecreation & Sports$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$760k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT SHELTER$7,500
ME SQUARED CANCER FOUNDATION$7,500
SALVATION ARMY$5,500
LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND TARRANT COUNTY$5,500
TEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPITAL$5,500
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 (FY17–24, $28k) 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%COMMUNITY PARTNERS OF TARRANT COUNTY: $10k → 11%COMMUNITY PARTNERS OF TARRANT COUNTY: $8k → 11%COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT CENTER INC: $5k → 11%LENA POPE HOME INC: $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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$190k · 6 repeat orgs$102k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +205% since the first grant, against +61% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
10

Total granted

$190k
$78k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+205%
+61%

Still filing today

33%
70%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 24% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $24k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthEducationRecreation & SportsHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • LF
    LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND
    8× · 2017–2024 · $48k
  • TS
    TEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPTIAL
    8× · 2017–2024 · $43k
  • SA
    SALVATION ARMY - TEXAS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $43k

Funded once

  • EV
    ESSILOR VISION FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue -76%
  • DH
    DENTAL HEALTH FOR ARLINGTON INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +34%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $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
Tip of Texas Family Outreach Inc

To strengthen families through parenting classes educational programs, youth programs and referral services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect.

—
2
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
3
Partnerships for Children

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

Human Services
4
Prevent Blindness Texas

to prevent blindness and preserve sight through education, certified vision screening and training, advocacy, research and community and patient service programs

—
5
East Texas Community Clinic Inc

To provide comprehensive primary care and preventive care to all persons regardless of their ability to pay.

—
6
Cook Children's Medical Center - Prosper

Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease and injury.

Health
7
Turn Center Foundation Inc

The turn center foundation manages and stewards charitable contributions to ensure the long-term sustainability of turn center's mission to provide occupational, physical, and speech therapy services to children.

—
8
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
9
Brighter Bites Inc

To create communities of health through fresh food. Brighter Bites seeks to improve health outcomes among children and families in under-resourced communities by using data-driven, evidence-based strategies for providing fresh produce and…

Food & Nutrition
10
The Parent Child Ctr of Tulsa Inc Endowment Trust

Supporting organization for the parent child center of tulsa providing services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect through education, treatment, and advocacy.

Human Services
11
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.

—
12
Trauma Support Services of North Texas

The mission of Trauma Support Services is to provide healing and resilience for individuals and communities affected by trauma through accessible mental health therapy and trauma-informed education.

Public Safety & Disaster
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Crippled Children; the most unlike its peers is Essilor Vision 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

12 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. 12 of the 20 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)
11/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLIND: $48,370 · OtherLIGHTHOUSE FOR THE BLINDTEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPTIAL: $43,370 · OtherTEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPTIALSALVATION ARMY - TEXAS: $43,370 · OtherSALVATION ARMY - TEXASESSILOR VISION FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherESSILOR VISION FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCORNERSTONE ASSISTANCE: $10,000 · OtherCORNERSTONE ASSISTANCE+2 more: $11,000 · Other+2 moreTHE PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT SHELTER OF TARRANT COUNTY: $27,500 · Housing & ShelterTHE PRESBY…COMMUNITY PARTNERS OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $17,500 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY …COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT CENTER INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY …LENA POPE HOME INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesLENA POPE …DENTAL HEALTH FOR ARLINGTON INC: $10,000 · HealthMe Squared Cancer Foundation: $7,500 · HealthTEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPITAL FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN: $5,500 · HealthTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $7,500 · EducationGILL CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC: $5,000 · EducationTASTE PROJECT: $10,000 · Food & NutritionSPECIAL OLYMPICS OF TEXAS INC: $5,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$186,110Housing & Shelter$27,500Human Services$27,500Health$23,000Education$12,500Food & Nutrition$10,000Recreation & Sports$5,000

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 budgetTHE PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT SHELTER OF TARRANT COUNTY: $27,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY PARTNERS OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $17,500 over 2y, 12% of budgetESSILOR VISION FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetDENTAL HEALTH FOR ARLINGTON INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetTASTE PROJECT: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $7,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetTEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPITAL FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN: $5,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGILL CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS OF TEXAS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY ENRICHMENT CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLENA POPE HOME INC: $5,000 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.

Communities Foundatio…Helen Irwin Littauer …Amon G Carter Foundat…Ann L Rhodes and Caro…Thomas M Helen McKee …Community Foundation …Sid W Richardson Foun…United Way of Tarrant…Stein Family Charitab…Adeline & George McQu…Paul E Andrews Jr Fou…The Alcon Foundation …
Communities Foundation of Texas IncTX20.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Helen Irwin Littauer Educational Trust · Amon G Carter Foundation · Ann L Rhodes and Carol Greene Rhodes · Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Sid W Richardson Foundation · United Way of Tarrant County · Stein Family Charitable Trust · Adeline & George McQueen Foundation Xxxxx1007 · Paul E Andrews Jr Foundation · The Alcon Foundation 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 Char Tua M H Wood & H G Wood funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Char Tua M H Wood & H G Wood. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 20 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 Char Tua M H Wood & H G Wood’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