Skip to content
Davis Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Davis 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.

$3.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$1.9M
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, FY2019 to 2025.

Health$2.1MEducation$2.1MPublic Safety & Disaster$149kReligion$131kPhilanthropy$72kHuman Services$60kFood & Nutrition$6k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $5k
  • $250k+2 grants · $3.8M
$612
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM MEDICAL FOUNDATION$1,882,620
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC$1,882,365
AMERICAN RED CROSS$1,275
UNIVERSITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH FOUNDATION INC$1,122
UNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN$612
SHIVERS CANCER FOUNDATION$510
THE SALVATION ARMY$510
AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION$510
ALZHEIMER'S TEXAS$255
MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC$51
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 (FY19–25, $149k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $37k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $30k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $23k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $22k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $19k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $16k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $1k → 14%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 45% of Davis Charitable Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 53% of the giving stays in TX; by stated purpose, 10%.

Davis Charitable Trustlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.6M · 14 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
1

Total granted

$4.6M
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+6%
+17%

Still filing today

50%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
PhilanthropyEducationHuman ServicesFood & 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

  • AN
    American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches
    7× · 2019–2025 · $149k · revenue +39%
  • SC
    SHIVERS CANCER FOUNDATION
    7× · 2019–2025 · $61k · revenue +54%
  • AC
    Austin Community College Foundation
    7× · 2019–2025 · $58k · revenue +149%

Funded once

  • CA
    CAPITAL AREA UNITED WAY
    one grant, 2023 · $11k · revenue +17%
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
Uta Foundation
Philanthropy
2
North Central Texas Medical Foundation
Health
3
Texas Trust Gives
Philanthropy
4
Md Anderson Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Tenet Healthcare Foundation
Philanthropy
6
The University of Texas Foundation No 1

To support the university of texas system

—
7
Greater Texas Foundation
Education
8
Texas Bankers Foundation
Education
9
Baylor Health Care System Foundation

To foster and support the activities and purposes of Baylor Scott & White Health, to encourage broad-based public support of the health care system and its affiliated institutions, and to advance the medical objectives, including…

Health
10
The University of Texas Foundation No 2

To support the university of texas system

—
11
United Health Foundation
Philanthropy
12
Forty First Foundation

The forty first foundation supports and advances the university of texas at austin in its pursuit of excellence. we work closely with the office of the president to identify, fund, and implement strategic initiatives that enhance the…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Oklahoma Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Shivers Cancer Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the 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 15 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)
2
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

University of Texas System Medical Foundation: $2,015,166 · OtherUniversity of Texas System Medical FoundationUNIVERSITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $90,619 · Other+6 more: $200,330 · Other+6 moreUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $2,005,907 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC+1 more: $58,052 · EducationAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $149,274 · Human ServicesSHIVERS CANCER FOUNDATION: $61,365 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN: $11,279 · PhilanthropyCAPITAL AREA UNITED WAY: $10,944 · PhilanthropyMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC: $5,970 · Food & Nutrition
Other$2,306,115Education$2,063,959Human Services$149,274Philanthropy$83,588Food & Nutrition$5,970

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $2,005,907 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $149,274 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetSHIVERS CANCER FOUNDATION: $61,365 over 7y, 1.8% of budgetAustin Community College Foundation: $58,052 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetALZHEIMERS TEXAS INC: $11,401 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetUNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN: $11,279 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCAPITAL AREA UNITED WAY: $10,944 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC: $5,970 over 7y, 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.

  • Who funds University of Texas System Medical Foundation ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
  • Who funds SHIVERS CANCER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Austin Community College Foundation ↗
  • Who funds ALZHEIMERS TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN ↗
  • Who funds CAPITAL AREA UNITED WAY ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC ↗

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.

Shell USA Company Fou…The Moody FoundationUnited Way WorldwideJpmorgan Chase Founda…The Blackbaud Giving …Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Natl Christian Charit…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Shell USA Company FoundationTX15.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Shell USA Company Foundation · The Moody Foundation · United Way Worldwide · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    1get 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 · 0–10%
    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 15 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 Davis’ 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