Skip to content
David and Judy Norsworthy Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

David and Judy Norsworthy Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.4M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2025.

Animals$2.8MCrime & Legal$400kHealth$250kHuman Services$53k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k11 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$100,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$25M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Red Arena$250,000
The Rescued Animals Second Chance I$150,000
Kerrville Pets Alive$102,500
The Pegasus Project$100,000
Living Grace Canine Ranch$100,000
Habitat for Horses Inc$100,000
TADSAW Inc$100,000
Hill Ctry Soc for Prev of Cruelty o$100,000
The Joyful Horse Project$100,000
Mission K9 Rescue Inc$100,000
Saving Hope Animal Rescue$100,000
Sunny Creek Ranch Equine Services$75,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $53k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, 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%SOHW Corp: $53k → 13%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.

73%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 10 repeat orgs$962k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue 0% since the first grant, against -12% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
4

Total granted

$2.5M
$610k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
-12%

Still filing today

90%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $353k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24’25
AnimalsHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • HC
    Hill Ctry Soc for Prev of Cruelty o
    3× · 2023–2025 · $400k
  • RA
    RESCUED ANIMALS-SECOND CHANCE INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $350k · revenue 0% · 67% of their budget
  • TI
    TADSAW INC
    2× · 2023–2025 · $350k · revenue -50% · 38% of their budget

Funded once

  • BE
    BLUEBONNET EQUINE HUMANE SOCIETY INC
    one grant, 2023 · $250k · revenue -34% · 28% of their budget
  • TP
    The Public For Animal Welfare Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $250k · revenue -12%
  • TR
    TEXAS RESCUE INC
    one grant, 2024 · $57k · revenue 0%
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
2nd Chance Ranch and Rescue

Sanctuary for abused or abandoned animals

Animals
2
Red Bucket Equine Rescue
Animals
3
Wolfe Ranch Rescue
Animals
4
Believe Ranch and Rescue
Animals
5
Fighting Chance Ranch & Rescue
Animals
6
Happy Acres Pet Rescue
Animals
7
Big Dog Rescue Inc co James & Cheryl Babcock
—
8
Purple Paws 2nd Chance Rescue
Animals
9
Rainfall Ranch Rescue

Equine rescue and rehabilitation

Animals
10
Where the Wild Things Are Rescue in

The rescue and rehabilitation of canines.

Animals
11
War Angel Farms Rescue and Rehabilitation Inc
Animals
12
Red Dog Ranch Animal Rescue Inc

We take in dogs, cats, donkeys, horses, and goats and provide them with care and training to assist them in finding a forever home.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rescued Animals-Second Chance Inc; the most unlike its peers is Texas Rescue 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

15 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. 15 of the 16 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
3/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RESCUED ANIMALS-SECOND CHANCE INC: $350,000 · AnimalsRESCUED ANIMALS-SECOND CHANCE INCTADSAW INC: $350,000 · AnimalsTADSAW INCSAVING HOPE ANIMAL RESCUE FUND: $300,000 · AnimalsSAVING HOPE ANIMAL RESCUE FUNDBLUEBONNET EQUINE HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $250,000 · AnimalsBLUEBONNET EQUINE HUMANE SOCIETY INCThe Public For Animal Welfare Inc: $250,000 · AnimalsThe Public For Animal Welfare IncHABITAT FOR HORSES INC: $200,000 · AnimalsHABITAT FOR HORSES INCTHE JOYFUL HORSE PROJECT: $200,000 · AnimalsTHE JOYFUL HORSE PROJECTMission K9 Rescue Inc: $200,000 · AnimalsMission K9 Rescue IncTHE PEGASUS PROJECT INC: $200,000 · AnimalsTHE PEGASUS PROJECT INCLIVING GRACE CANINE RANCH: $200,000 · AnimalsLIVING GRACE CANINE RANCHSunny Creek Ranch Equine Services: $150,000 · AnimalsSunny Creek Ranch Equine ServicesKERRVILLE PETS ALIVE: $102,500 · Animals+1 more: $57,100 · AnimalsHill Ctry Soc for Prev of Cruelty o: $400,000 · OtherHill Ctry So…RED ARENA INC: $250,000 · HealthSOWW Corp: $52,500 · Human Services
Animals$2,809,600Other$400,000Health$250,000Human Services$52,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRESCUED ANIMALS-SECOND CHANCE INC: $350,000 over 2y, 67% of budgetTADSAW INC: $350,000 over 2y, 38% of budgetSAVING HOPE ANIMAL RESCUE FUND: $300,000 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetBLUEBONNET EQUINE HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $250,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetThe Public For Animal Welfare Inc: $250,000 over 1y, 22% of budgetRED ARENA INC: $250,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetHABITAT FOR HORSES INC: $200,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetTHE JOYFUL HORSE PROJECT: $200,000 over 2y, 34% of budgetMission K9 Rescue Inc: $200,000 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetTHE PEGASUS PROJECT INC: $200,000 over 2y, 20% of budgetLIVING GRACE CANINE RANCH: $200,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetSunny Creek Ranch Equine Services: $150,000 over 2y, 58% of budgetSOWW Corp: $52,500 over 1y, 3.5% 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.

Austin Community Foun…The Leo & Emogene Cas…The American Society …Shell USA Company Fou…Communities Foundatio…Network for GoodPaypal Charitable Giv…The Pfizer Foundation…The Bank of America C…American Endowment Fo…The Blackbaud Giving …National Philanthropi…
Austin Community Foundation IncTX15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Austin Community Foundation Inc · The Leo & Emogene Case Foundation · The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · Shell USA Company Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Network for Good · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust

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 David and Judy Norsworthy Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from David and Judy Norsworthy Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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 16 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 David and Judy Norsworthy’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