Skip to content
Gillson Longenbaugh Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Gillson Longenbaugh Foundation

Its FY2021 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$12M
Granted FY2021
1
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$12M
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, FY2017 to 2021.

Health$49MEducation$265kCrime & Legal$122kYouth Development$61kHuman Services$60kPublic Benefit$50kHousing & Shelter$5kOther$0
02FY2021 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$11,985,897
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Vanguard Charitable Endowment$11,985,897
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 (FY19–19, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%Wig Out: $5k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$48M · 16 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +73% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2021, 15 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
15

Total granted

$48M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+73%
+26%

Still filing today

56%
47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
HealthEducationHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentCrime & LegalHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • UO
    University of Michigan
    2× · 2018–2019 · $400k · revenue +195% · 93% of their budget
  • TC
    Texas Children's Hospital
    2× · 2017–2019 · $288k · revenue +105%
  • CS
    Crime Stoppers of Houston Inc
    2× · 2018–2020 · $122k · revenue +73%

Funded once

  • RC
    Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jer
    one grant, 2018 · $250k
  • BC
    Baylor College of Medicinegraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $207k · revenue +47%
  • TF
    TIRR Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $165k · revenue +69%
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
The University of TexasTexas a&M Investment Management Company

To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…

Education
2
TMC3 Development Corporation
Health
3
Banner -University Medical Group

Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.

Health
4
Texas Children's Urgent Care

To create a healthier future for children and women throughout our global community by leading in patient care, education and research.

Health
5
Children's Hospital Corporation

Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service

Health
6
Mhs Physicians of Texas

Memorial hermann health system is a nonprofit, values-driven, community-owned health system dedicated to improving health. our vision is to create healthier communities, now and for generations to come. our values are community,…

Health
7
Texas Children's Hospital Foundation

To create a healthier future for children and women throughout our global community by leading in patient care, education and research.

Health
8
University Hospital & Clinics Inc

The organization provides medical care to improve, maintain, and restore the health of the people in the communities we serve.

Health
9
Cook Children's Medical Center

Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease and injury.

Health
10
Texas Children's Health Plan

To create a healthier future for children and women throughout our global community by leading in patient care, education, and research.

Health
11
Texas Health Resources

Through its affiliates, thr operates an integrated healthcare system with services and facilities throughout north central texas to improve the health of the people in the communities they serve.

Health
12
Texas Heart Medical Group

To provide cutting-edge cardiac care to diagnose, treat, and prevent cardiovascular diseases.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Children's Hospital; the most unlike its peers is University of Michigan. 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 31 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Vanguard Charitable Endowment: $41,672,046 · OtherVanguard Charitable EndowmentVanguard Charitable Endowment Progr: $4,400,000 · OtherVanguard Charitable Endowment Progr+17 more: $2,132,425 · OtherTexas Children's Hospital: $287,500 · HealthTHE METHODIST HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $200,000 · HealthTIRR Foundation: $165,000 · HealthTEXAS MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Health+1 more: $10,000 · HealthBaylor College of Medicine: $207,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO FOUNDATION INC: $45,000 · EducationThe Brookwood Community Inc: $20,000 · EducationCamp For All Foundation: $23,500 · Youth DevelopmentDO THE WRITE THING: $7,500 · Crime & LegalWig Out: $5,000 · Human ServicesSTAR OF HOPE MISSION: $5,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$48,204,471Health$712,500Education$272,000Youth Development$23,500Crime & Legal$7,500Human Services$5,000Housing & Shelter$5,000

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 budgetUniversity of Michigan: $400,000 over 2y, 93% of budgetTexas Children's Hospital: $287,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBaylor College of Medicine: $207,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE METHODIST HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTIRR Foundation: $165,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetCrime Stoppers of Houston Inc: $121,500 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetCASA DE ESPERANZA DE LOS NINOS INC: $60,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetTEXAS MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetTHE ARC OF THE CAPITAL AREA: $40,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetCamp For All Foundation: $23,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetTEXAS MEDICAL CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDO THE WRITE THING: $7,500 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetSTAR OF HOPE MISSION: $5,000 over 2y, 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 Michigan ↗
  • Who funds Texas Children's Hospital ↗
  • Who funds Baylor College of Medicine ↗
  • Who funds THE METHODIST HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TIRR Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Crime Stoppers of Houston Inc ↗
  • Who funds CASA DE ESPERANZA DE LOS NINOS INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE ARC OF THE CAPITAL AREA ↗
  • Who funds Camp For All Foundation ↗
  • Who funds The Brookwood Community Inc ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds DO THE WRITE THING ↗
  • Who funds Wig Out ↗
  • Who funds STAR OF HOPE MISSION ↗

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.

Greater Houston Commu…Strake FoundationRaymond James Charita…National Philanthropi…Natl Christian Charit…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Greater Houston Community FoundationTX14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Houston Community Foundation · Strake Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Gillson Longenbaugh Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gillson Longenbaugh Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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 31 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Gillson Longenbaugh’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