· Private foundation
G R White Trust Xxxxx9003
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k22 grants · $421k
- $50k–250k9 grants · $835k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Texas A&M Foundation | $398,895 |
| TEXAS A AND M FOUNDATION | $350,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW | $300,000 |
| SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FDN | $160,000 |
| Texas Tech University College of Agricul | $150,000 |
| St Stephen's Episcopal School | $130,000 |
| TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY | $130,000 |
| University of Texas Law School Foundatio | $60,000 |
| Brady Volunteer Fire Department Inc | $55,000 |
| PARKLAND FOUNDATION INC | $50,000 |
| Baylor Scott and White All Saints Health | $50,000 |
| Vision Heights Church | $50,000 |
| MCCULLOCH COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOC | $35,500 |
| Rotary Club of Brady Texas | $30,409 |
| Casa Care Inc | $30,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $476k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +39% since the first grant, against +18% for the ones you funded once.
42 repeat relationships — 22 still active in FY2024, 20 since wound down; 14 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $452k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- TATexas A&M Foundation5× · 2020–2024 · $4.0M · revenue +54%
- SMSOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION3× · 2022–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +131%
- BHBaylor Health Care System Foundation4× · 2020–2023 · $663k · revenue +139%
Funded once
- USUT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTERone grant, 2020 · $40k
- RBROCHELLE BAPTIST CHURCHone grant, 2023 · $35k
- RSROCHELLE STUDY CLUB FBO ROCHELLEone grant, 2020 · $32k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
A state of texas licensed foster care and adoption agency that identifies and provides approved healing foster homes for children.
Fire fighting and prevention
To provide shelter to abused families.
Texas Christian Foundations mission is to mobilize resources by inspiring biblical generosity and educating Texans on ways their generosity can impact their community, Texas and the world.
To provide fire suppression, fire investigation, and search and rescue services to the citizens of clyde and the surrounding rural areas of callahan co., tx.
The organization operates a fire museum and also maintains, repairs and restores historic fire vehicles and related equipment for various fire departments located around the country.
Pregnancy counseling
Mountain home vfd provides fire suppression and disaster assistance to the community of mountain home, texas.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The University of Texas Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Family Shelter of Mcculloch Co. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 38 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 27% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 16% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
24 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 24 of the 71 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Texas A&M Foundation ↗
- Who funds SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Baylor Health Care System Foundation ↗
- Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE OF NORTH TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds PARKLAND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds RIVERBEND RETREAT CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE MISSION AT BRADY ↗
- Who funds MCCULLOCH COUNTY LIBRARY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds HEART OF TEXAS HISTORICAL MUSE ↗
- Who funds MCCULLOCH COUNTY RESOURCE CENT ↗
- Who funds The University of Texas Law School Foundation ↗
- Who funds FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES ↗
- Who funds FAMILY SHELTER OF MCCULLOCH CO ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Texas Instruments Foundation · The Covia Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Shell USA Company Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization G R White Trust Xxxxx9003 funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.