Skip to content
Hamon Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Hamon Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$11M
Granted FY2024still arriving
36
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$5.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$55MEducation$15MHuman Services$2.7MCivil Rights$1.5MPublic Benefit$1.3MFood & Nutrition$960kInternational$930kHousing & Shelter$842kOther$0
02FY2024 · 36 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k18 grants · $210k
  • $50k–250k11 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+7 grants · $9.4M
$50,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$63M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILDRENS MEDICAL CENTER$5,000,000
UPLIFT EDUCATION$1,750,000
UT SOUTHWESTERN - RED BIRD PROJECT$1,000,000
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY$620,000
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY$500,000
UT SOUTHWESTERN - DR BEUTLER$250,000
Individual grant recipient$250,000
KIPP TEXAS$200,000
FOR OAK CLIFF$125,000
WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER$120,000
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS$100,000
VNA MEALS ON WHEELS$100,000
Individual grant recipient$100,000
DALLAS COLLEGE FUND$100,000
COMMUNITES IN SCHOOLS$76,900
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 (FY17–24, $3.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FOREFRONT LIVING FOUNDATION: $400k → 14%PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITIES AND SERVICES FOUNDATION: $110k → 14%MOMMIES IN NEED: $307k → 14%MOMMIES IN NEED: $100k → 14%MOMMIES IN NEED: $100k → 14%MOMMIES IN NEED: $100k → 14%VOGEL ALCOVE: $80k → 14%VOGEL ALCOVE: $80k → 14%VOGEL ALCOVE: $80k → 14%VIOLA'S HOUSE: $10k → 14%OUR CALLING: $10k → 14%MEALS ON WHEELS: $100k → 14%MEALS ON WHEELS: $100k → 14%CITY SQUARE: $10k → 14%CITY SQUARE: $10k → 14%CITY SQUARE: $10k → 14%CITY SQUARE: $10k → 14%CITY SQUARE: $10k → 14%CITY SQUARE: $10k → 14%WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER: $120k → 14%WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER: $60k → 14%WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER: $50k → 14%WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER: $10k → 14%WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER: $10k → 14%WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER: $10k → 14%DALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $150k → 14%FOR OAK CLIFF: $250k → 14%FOR OAK CLIFF: $125k → 14%NORTH DALLAS SHARED MINISTRIES: $450k → 14%NORTH DALLAS SHARED MINISTRIES: $200k → 14%NORTH DALLAS SHARED MINISTRIES: $50k → 14%NORTH DALLAS SHARED MINISTRIES: $50k → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$63M · 56 repeat orgs$17M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +23% since the first grant, against +5% for those funded once.

56 repeat relationships: 30 still active in FY2024, 26 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

56
34

Total granted

$63M
$17M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+23%
+5%

Still filing today

50%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $422k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesEducationHealthArts & CultureHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther
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

  • UE
    UPLIFT EDUCATION
    3× · 2022–2024 · $4.0M · revenue +14%
  • Southern Methodist University
    8× · 2017–2024 · $4.0M · revenue +57%
  • BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
    4× · 2021–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • US
    UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $6.0M
  • CM
    CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $3.0M · revenue +422%
  • BF
    BONTON FARMS
    one grant, 2022 · $1.3M
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
Raise Texas

RAISE Texas advances equitable policies and programs that foster financial security and economic mobility for low- and moderate-income Texans. We equip, innovate and advocate to reduce disparities, remove barriers and build opportunities…

Human Services
2
Dallas International University

As a christian university, we provide education and research opportunities preparing global leaders to partner with local communities.

Education
3
Center for Public Policy Priorities

At the Every Texan, we believe in a Texas that offers everyone the chance to compete and succeed in life. We envision a Texas where everyone is healthy, well educated, and financially secure. We want the best Texas, a proud state that sets…

Public Benefit
4
Downtown Dallas Inc

Downtown Dallas, Inc. (DDI), is the champion of a clean and safe Downtown and of the economic development and vibrancy of this community of diverse, unique neighborhoods. DDI: Mobilizes and amplifies the services of public agencies.…

—
5
COMMIT2DALLAS

Our mission is that by 2040, at least half of all 25 to 34 year old residents of Dallas County, irrespective of race, will earn a living wage. Together, we cultivate a collaborative educational ecosystem with school systems, higher…

Education
6
Progress Texas Institute

The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.

Civil Rights
7
Leadership Austin

Leadership austin connects and develops leaders to courageously engage and transform our communities.

Youth Development
8
Dallas Services

The mission of Dallas Services is to enable individuals with disabilities and other special needs to achieve their potential by fostering community inclusiveness and independence.

—
9
Dcms Foundation

The dcms foundation's mission is to improve the quality and distribution of health services throughout dallas county.

Health
10
Progress Texas

Progress Texas is a non-profit media organization advocating for progressive ideals and policies in our state.

Civil Rights
11
Episcopal Foundation of Dallas

The foundation's mission is to strengthen and support faith communities by partnering wise investments with purposeful giving.

Religion
12
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.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dallas Children's Advocacy Center; 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

55 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. 55 of the 96 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
46/55
Grantees still filing
33/55
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHILDRENS MEDICAL CENTER: $18,500,000 · OtherCHILDRENS MEDICAL CENTERUT SOUTHWESTERN CENTER FOR BRAIN HEALTH: $9,000,000 · OtherUT SOUTHWESTERN CENTER FOR BRAIN HEALTHUT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER: $6,000,000 · OtherUT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTERUT SOUTHWESTERN - RED BIRD PROJECT: $5,000,000 · OtherUT SOUTHWESTERN - RED BIRD PROJECTUT SOUTHWESTERN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE CENTER: $4,000,000 · OtherUT SOUTHWESTERN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE CENTERIndividual grant recipient: $3,000,000 · OtherUT SOUTHWESTERN - DR BEUTLER: $2,250,000 · Other+56 more: $11,703,678 · Other+56 moreUPLIFT EDUCATION: $4,000,000 · EducationUPLIFT EDUCATIONSouthern Methodist University: $3,961,680 · EducationSouthern Methodis…BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: $2,000,000 · EducationBAYLOR UNIVERSITYKIPP Texas Inc: $1,000,000 · EducationKIPP Texas IncTHE GEORGE AND BARBARA BUSH FOUNDATION: $1,000,000 · EducationTHE GEORGE AND BA…+5 more: $205,000 · EducationCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $3,000,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS INC: $850,000 · Health+3 more: $144,000 · HealthNORTH DALLAS SHARED MINISTRIES INC: $750,000 · Human ServicesMOMMIES IN NEED: $607,210 · Human ServicesFOREFRONT LIVING FOUNDATION: $510,000 · Human ServicesFOR OAK CLIFF: $375,000 · Human ServicesVOGEL ALCOVE: $270,000 · Human ServicesWESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $260,000 · Human ServicesMEALS ON WHEELS: $200,000 · Human ServicesDALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $150,000 · Human Services+4 more: $160,000 · Human ServicesDallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum: $250,000 · Arts & CultureBIG THOUGHT: $250,000 · Arts & CultureNORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING INC: $50,000 · Arts & CultureTrinity Park Conservancy: $500,000 · Community ImprovementAT LAST: $400,000 · Youth DevelopmentCAFE MOMENTUM: $90,000 · Youth Development
Other$59,453,678Education$12,166,680Health$3,994,000Human Services$3,282,210Arts & Culture$550,000Community Improvement$500,000Youth Development$490,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUPLIFT EDUCATION: $4,000,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetSouthern Methodist University: $3,961,680 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $3,000,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetBAYLOR UNIVERSITY: $2,000,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetKIPP DALLAS-FORT WORTH INC: $1,250,000 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetKIPP Texas Inc: $1,000,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS INC: $850,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetNORTH DALLAS SHARED MINISTRIES INC: $750,000 over 4y, 14% of budgetMOMMIES IN NEED: $607,210 over 4y, 18% of budgetCHILD POVERTY ACTION LAB: $600,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetFOREFRONT LIVING FOUNDATION: $510,000 over 2y, 9.7% of budgetTrinity Park Conservancy: $500,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetAT LAST: $400,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetFAMILY GATEWAY INC: $375,000 over 4y, 2.3% of budgetFOR OAK CLIFF: $375,000 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetMY POSSIBILITIES: $300,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetVOGEL ALCOVE: $270,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetWESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $260,000 over 6y, 4.8% of budgetDallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum: $250,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBIG THOUGHT: $250,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetTexas 2036: $250,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetGoodwill Industries of Dallas Inc: $210,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetESSILOR VISION FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetDALLAS CASA: $200,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetDALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $150,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN DALLAS INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCAFE MOMENTUM: $90,000 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetAUSTIN STREET CENTER: $80,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetDME Exchange of Dallas Inc: $80,000 over 8y, 20% of budgetTHE BRIDGE: $80,000 over 8y, 1.0% of budgetNORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK: $80,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budget29 ACRES INC: $71,500 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetRISE SCHOOL OF DALLAS: $70,000 over 7y, 16% of budgetEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $70,000 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetSENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS INC: $70,000 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetCITYSQUARE: $60,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetHendrick Scholarship Foundation: $50,000 over 5y, 3.9% of budgetUPCHIEVE INC: $50,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetTHE WARREN CENTER INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetNORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SUICIDE AND CRISIS CENTER OF NORTH TEXAS: $30,000 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetSOUTHWESTERN DIABETIC FOUNDATION INC: $30,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetDONORSCHOOSEORG: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHOME POINT: $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetDALLAS BETHLEHEM CENTER INC: $15,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetTraffick911: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetVIOLAS HOUSE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetOURCALLING INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 UPLIFT EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds Southern Methodist University ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BAYLOR UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds KIPP DALLAS-FORT WORTH INC ↗
  • Who funds KIPP Texas Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE GEORGE AND BARBARA BUSH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTH DALLAS SHARED MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds MOMMIES IN NEED ↗
  • Who funds CHILD POVERTY ACTION LAB ↗
  • Who funds FOREFRONT LIVING FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Trinity Park Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds AT LAST ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY GATEWAY INC ↗
  • Who funds FOR OAK CLIFF ↗
  • Who funds MY POSSIBILITIES ↗
  • Who funds VOGEL ALCOVE ↗
  • Who funds WESLEY-RANKIN COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum ↗
  • Who funds BIG THOUGHT ↗
  • Who funds Texas 2036 ↗
  • Who funds Goodwill Industries of Dallas 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.

Communities Foundatio…The Dallas FoundationW P & Bulah Luse Foun…The Rees-Jones Founda…Hillcrest FoundationThe Perot FoundationTexas Women's Foundat…Texas Instruments Fou…Theodore and Beulah B…Byrne Family Foundati…United Way of Metropo…The Moody Foundation
Communities Foundation of Texas IncTX43.1× affinity24 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · The Dallas Foundation · W P & Bulah Luse Foundation · The Rees-Jones Foundation · Hillcrest Foundation · The Perot Foundation · Texas Women's Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · Theodore and Beulah Beasley Foundation Inc · Byrne Family Foundation Trust · United Way of Metropolitan Dallas Inc · The Moody 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 Hamon Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hamon Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    16report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Hamon Charitable Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Hamon Charitable 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.

    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 96 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Hamon’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