Skip to content
Chris and Connie Burnett Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Chris and Connie Burnett Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$35k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Recreation & Sports$72kHuman Services$50kEducation$43kMembership Benefit$30kReligion$21kHousing & Shelter$8kYouth Development$5kFood & Nutrition$4kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$531k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PI BETA PHI FOUNDATION$10,000
CHRIST THE KING$10,000
CLEATS FOR KIDS$5,000
JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT$5,000
POSITIVE TOMORROWS$2,500
OSU FOUNDATION$2,500
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 (FY21–23, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 93% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%HELPING HANDS MINISTRIES: $500 → 13%WINGS SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITY: $6k → 16%INFANT CRISIS SERVICES: $1k → 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.
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$201k · 8 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +63% since the first grant, against +53% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
11

Total granted

$201k
$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+63%
+53%

Still filing today

63%
55%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationHealthCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentFood & 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

  • CLEATS FOR KIDS FOUNDATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $71k · revenue +85%
  • CC
    CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $43k · revenue +66%
  • OS
    Oklahoma State University Foundation
    6× · 2020–2025 · $41k · revenue +63%

Funded once

  • WS
    WINGS SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITY INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $6k · revenue +89%
  • HH
    HELPING HANDS MINISTRIES
    one grant, 2020 · $5k
  • AC
    AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
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
Oklahoma Partnership for School Readiness Foundation Inc

To improve school readiness outcomes in oklahoma.

Education
2
The Parent Child Ctr of Tulsa Inc

To prevent child abuse and neglect through education, treatment, and advocacy. the parent child center of tulsa (pcct) has been serving the tulsa community and surrounding areas since 1990. in 2024, pcct served more than 96,000 infants,…

—
3
Oklahoma City Public Schools Foundation Inc

We are the leading advocate for okcps. we strengthen our schools through community investment, strategic partnerships, and innovative programs.

Education
4
New Hope Oklahoma Inc

New hope teaches children of prisoners to become positive, productive, contributing members of society. we do this by providing after school programs, weekend retreats, holiday parties and summer camps to children who have or have had a…

Youth Development
5
Creighton Community Foundation

Creighton community foundation's (ccf) core program "community works" leverages neighborhood schools to support vibrant communities in the poorest parts of urban phoenix, where neighborhoods suffer from poverty- driven disadvantage and…

Philanthropy
6
City Rescue Mission Inc

Our mission is to lead our community by serving people experiencing or at risk of homelessness with help, hope, and healing, in the spirit of excellence, under the call of christ.

Human Services
7
Community Action Project of Tulsa County Inc

Community action project of tulsa county inc.'s (cap tulsa) mission is to help young children in lower-income families grow up and achieve economic success.

Human Services
8
Citizens Caring for Children

Citizens caring for children breaks the cycle of abuse and neglect for oklahoma foster children by addressing their material, emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs...because every child deserves the chance for a better life. through…

—
9
People Helping People

People helping people (php) is dedicated to reducing the number of children living in poverty by teaching low-income women, primarily single moms, how to earn a living wage. each year, 1,000 prospective clients enroll in our employment…

Human Services
10
Mid-Kansas Community Action Program Inc

Mid-kansas community action program assists people in poverty move towards self-reliance through advocacy, education, training and housing in the counties we serve.

Community Improvement
11
Ability Kc

Our mission is to build brighter futures for children and adults with disabilities by providing comprehensive medical, therapeutic, educational, and vocational services.

—
12
Oklahoma Blood Institute

Oklahoma blood institute's (obi) mission is to be the donor-to-patient lifeline by providing our communities and medical partners security by meeting blood transfusion and health care needs.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Positive Tomorrows Inc; the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY INC: $42,920 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA…PI BETA PHI FOUNDATION: $30,000 · OtherPI BETA PHI FOUNDATIONCHRIST THE KING: $10,000 · OtherCHRIST THE KINGHELPING HANDS MINISTRIES: $5,000 · OtherJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT: $5,000 · OtherST LUKES: $3,500 · Other+5 more: $7,500 · Other+5 moreCLEATS FOR KIDS FOUNDATION: $70,681 · Human ServicesCLEATS FOR KIDS FOUNDATIONWINGS SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITY INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesWINGS SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITY INC+2 more: $1,500 · Human ServicesOklahoma State University Foundation: $41,300 · EducationOklahoma State Unive…+1 more: $500 · EducationPOSITIVE TOMORROWS INC: $7,500 · Youth DevelopmentREGIONAL FOOD BANK OF OKLAHOMA INC: $3,500 · Food & NutritionPOSSIBILITIES INC: $1,000 · Community ImprovementBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $250 · Health
Other$103,920Human Services$78,181Education$41,800Youth Development$7,500Food & Nutrition$3,500Community Improvement$1,000Health$250

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 budgetCLEATS FOR KIDS FOUNDATION: $70,681 over 6y, 1.9% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY INC: $42,920 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetOklahoma State University Foundation: $41,300 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetPOSITIVE TOMORROWS INC: $7,500 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWINGS SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITY INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetREGIONAL FOOD BANK OF OKLAHOMA INC: $3,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetINFANT CRISIS SERVICES INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPOSSIBILITIES INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPUTNAM CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHELPING HANDS MINISTRIES INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $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.

Oklahoma City Communi…El and Thelma Gaylord…American Fidelity Fou…Amazonsmile Foundation
Oklahoma City Community Foundation IncOK15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Oklahoma City Community Foundation Inc · El and Thelma Gaylord Foundation · American Fidelity Foundation · 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 Chris and Connie Burnett Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chris and Connie Burnett Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 70%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
7get 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 · 0–5%
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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Chris and Connie Burnett’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