Skip to content
Everett & Edith Comer Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Everett & Edith Comer 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.

$704k
Granted FY2025still arriving
22
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$316k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Education$432kHealth$111kHuman Services$110kReligion$70kFood & Nutrition$62kArts & Culture$16kAnimals$16kHousing & Shelter$16kOther$0
02FY2025 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k20 grants · $317k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $70k
  • $250k+1 grant · $316k
$15,821
Median grant
5
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VMI FOUNDATION INC$316,419
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH$70,315
THE WOMENS CLUB OF FORT WORTH$16,243
PREGNANCY LIFELINE$15,821
PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT SHELTER$15,821
FORT WORTH ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION$15,821
MEALS ON WHEELS INC$15,821
THE CUMBERLAND REST INC$15,821
ALL CHURCH HOME FOR CHILDREN INC$15,821
Individual grant recipient$15,821
DOWNTOWN FORT WORTH INC$15,821
JAMES L WEST SPECIAL CARE CENTER$15,821
GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION$15,821
NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY$15,821
AIDS OUTREACH CENTER$15,821
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 (FY21–25, $110k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $16k → 11%THE CUMBERLAND REST INC: $16k → 11%MEALS ON WHEELS INC: $16k → 11%GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC: $5k → 11%GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC: $16k → 11%GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC: $5k → 11%SAFEHAVEN OF TARRANT COUNTY: $16k → 11%GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC: $5k → 11%LENA POPE HOME INC: $16k → 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.

59%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$509k · 4 repeat orgs$356k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +7% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 19 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
19

Total granted

$509k
$356k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
0%

Still filing today

75%
68%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $356k 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
Human ServicesHealthEducationFood & NutritionArts & CultureAnimalsOther
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

  • VF
    VMI Foundation
    2× · 2024–2025 · $334k · revenue +2%
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS INC OF TARRANT COUNTY
    3× · 2019–2021 · $46k · revenue +121%
  • GS
    GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $31k · revenue +7%

Funded once

  • FU
    FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
    one grant, 2025 · $70k
  • TW
    THE WOMAN'S CLUB OF FORT WORTH INC
    one grant, 2025 · $16k · revenue 0%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2025 · $16k
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
Safe City Commission

Support law enforcement and promote public safety awareness and crime prevention in Fort Worth.

Crime & Legal
2
Dallas-Fort Worth Hospital Council

The mission of the Dallas-Fort Worth Hospital Council is to drive evidence-based improvement in patient care and health equity throughout the region.

—
3
Fort Bend Seniors Meals on Wheels and Much Much More

See Schedule OFort Bend Seniors Meals on Wheels provides comprehensive services, including Meals on Wheels, congregate meals, transportation, case management, health screenings, information and referral services, recreation, and more. Our…

Human Services
4
Visiting Nurse Association of Texas

Established in 1934, vna helps older adults live with dignity and independence at home by providing in-home care, food and friendship for the ill, hungry, and homebound.

Health
5
Meals On Wheels North Central Texas Inc

Organization provides services to senior citizens and the disabled, primarily through home-delivered meals and congregate meals.

Human Services
6
Meals On Wheels Montgomery County

To foster the independence and dignity of homebound seniors in montgomery county by providing them with nutritious meals, transportation, and caring connections.

—
7
Lighthouse for the Homeless

The only free day shelter in the area comprised of a collection of community agencies and service providers, all focused on a single mission: ending homelessness in tarrant county.

Human Services
8
Presbyterian Medical Services

Presbyterian medical services designs and delivers quality, integrated health, education, and human services in response to identified community needs of the multicultural people of the southwest.

Health
9
Faith Presbyterian Providers Inc

To provide hospice and physician services to residents in the dallas metroplex and training to physicians and other care givers on providing these services. faith presbyterian providers is currently dormant.

—
10
Recovery Resource Council

To promote wellness and recovery from alcohol and substance use disorders and trauma.

—
11
Travis County Medical Society

Travis county medical society (tcms) represents the medical profession in matters of importance to the membership and the community it serves.

—
12
Jewish Federation of Fort Worth & Tarrant County

To build a strong and unified jewish community in order to ensure well-being and continuity of the jewish people in tarrant county, in israel, and throughout the world. the federation pursues its mission through fundraising, community-wide…

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Downtown Fort Worth Inc; the most unlike its peers is Meals On Wheels. 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

16 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. 16 of the 23 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
7/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VMI Foundation: $334,395 · EducationVMI FoundationFORT WORTH PUBLIC LIBRARY: $97,250 · OtherFORT WORTH PUBLIC LIBRARYFIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $70,315 · OtherFIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCHIndividual grant recipient: $15,821 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPrevent Blindness Texas: $15,821 · OtherPrevent Blindness TexasJAMES L WEST SPECIAL CARE CENTER: $15,821 · OtherJAMES L WEST SPECIAL CARE CENTERDOWNTOWN FORT WORTH INC: $15,821 · OtherDOWNTOWN FORT WORTH INCALL CHURCH HOME FOR CHILDREN INC: $15,821 · OtherALL CHURCH HOME FOR CHILDREN INCARTHRITIS FOUNDATION: $15,821 · OtherARTHRITIS FOUNDATIONPregnancy Lifeline: $15,821 · OtherPregnancy LifelineAMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $15,821 · OtherAMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF TEXASGUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC: $30,821 · Human ServicesGUARDIANSHIP S…THE GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $15,821 · Human ServicesTHE GLADNEY CE…SAFEHAVEN OF TARRANT COUNTY: $15,821 · Human ServicesSAFEHAVEN OF T…THE CUMBERLAND REST INC: $15,821 · Human ServicesTHE CUMBERLAND…MEALS ON WHEELS: $15,821 · Human ServicesMEALS ON WHEEL…LENA POPE HOME INC: $15,821 · Human ServicesLENA POPE HOME…MEALS ON WHEELS INC OF TARRANT COUNTY: $46,216 · Food & NutritionAIDS OUTREACH CENTER: $15,821 · HealthNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $15,821 · HealthTHE WOMAN'S CLUB OF FORT WORTH INC: $16,243 · Arts & CultureTHE FORT WORTH ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: $15,821 · AnimalsTHE PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT SHELTER OF TARRANT COUNTY: $15,821 · Housing & Shelter
Education$334,395Other$294,133Human Services$109,926Food & Nutrition$46,216Health$31,642Arts & Culture$16,243Animals$15,821Housing & Shelter$15,821

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 budgetVMI Foundation: $334,395 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS INC OF TARRANT COUNTY: $46,216 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetGUARDIANSHIP SERVICES INC: $30,821 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetTHE WOMAN'S CLUB OF FORT WORTH INC: $16,243 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetTHE FORT WORTH ZOOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: $15,821 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPrevent Blindness Texas: $15,821 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetSAFEHAVEN OF TARRANT COUNTY: $15,821 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDOWNTOWN FORT WORTH INC: $15,821 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE CUMBERLAND REST INC: $15,821 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY: $15,821 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS: $15,821 over 1y, 11% 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…Thomas M Helen McKee …Sid W Richardson Foun…Community Foundation …Paul E Andrews Jr Fou…The Morris FoundationAmon G Carter Foundat…Ken W Davis FoundationUnited Way of Tarrant…Textron Charitable Tr…Bnsf Railway Foundati…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…
Communities Foundation of Texas IncTX18.1× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation Inc · Sid W Richardson Foundation · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Paul E Andrews Jr Foundation · The Morris Foundation · Amon G Carter Foundation · Ken W Davis Foundation · United Way of Tarrant County · Textron Charitable Trust Dtd 122353 · Bnsf Railway Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase 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 Everett & Edith Comer Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Everett & Edith Comer Charitable Trust. 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 23 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 Everett & Edith Comer’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