· Private foundation
H L & Elizabeth M Brown Foundation
Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2023.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- Under $10k1 grant · $5k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $155k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $331k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEXAS BALLET THEATER INC | $180,717 |
| PERMIAN BASIN BEHAVIOR HEALTH CENTER | $100,000 |
| TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY | $50,000 |
| TARRANT AREA FOOD BANK | $40,000 |
| LENA POPE HOME | $30,000 |
| ANDERSON RANCH ARTS CENTER | $25,000 |
| SIXTY AND BETTER | $20,000 |
| BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS | $20,000 |
| GILL CHILDREN'S SERVICES | $20,000 |
| UNION GOSPEL MISSION OF TARRANT COUNTY | $5,000 |
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 (FY23–23, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 8% of H L & Elizabeth M Brown Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
3 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $235k 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
- TBTEXAS BALLET THEATER INC6× · 2017–2023 · $226k · revenue +160%
- TCTEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY5× · 2017–2023 · $130k · revenue +60%
- ARANDERSON RANCH ARTS CENTER3× · 2020–2023 · $56k · revenue +67%
Funded once
- SAST ANN'S CATHOLIC CHURCHone grant, 2020 · $50k
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.
To improve the health and quality of life for the people of texas and beyond through excellence in education, research, clinical care, community engagement and to provide national leadership in primary care.
The mission of Texas Public Radio is to engage, inspire and inform, bringing people together to better understand their community and world.
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…
Texas wesleyan university, guided by its deep methodist heritage, provides transformational learning experiences and research opportunities to a diverse group of students to develop their full potential as individuals and as members of the…
With more than 1 million patient visits each year, Children's Health is North Texas' leading pediatric health system and among the largest in the nation. For more than a century, our mission has been clear: make life better for children.…
The mission of baylor university is to educate men and women for worldwide leadership and service by integrating academic excellence and christian commitment within a caring community.
Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.
To improve the care and well being of our community, nationally and internationally, through innovative clinically relevant research that is consistent with the mission, vision and values of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH).
Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.
Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Anderson Ranch Arts Center and the most unlike its peers is Texas Christian University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 11 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 BALLET THEATER INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds PERMIAN BASIN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds ANDERSON RANCH ARTS CENTER ↗
- Who funds Tarrant Area Food Bank ↗
- Who funds LENA POPE HOME INC ↗
- Who funds SIXTY AND BETTER INC ↗
- Who funds BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds GILL CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds Union Gospel Mission of Tarrant County ↗
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: The Alcon Foundation Inc · Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation Inc · Bnsf Railway Foundation · Robert D and Catherine R Alexander Foundation · Crystelle Waggoner Charitable Trust · The Roach Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Leo Potishman Foundation Xxxxx3002 · Amon G Carter-Star Tele Emply Fund · McCallum Family Foundation · The Morris Foundation
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 H L & Elizabeth M Brown Foundation 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to H L & Elizabeth M Brown Foundation?
Find your warmest path to H L & Elizabeth M Brown Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.