· Private foundation
Harte Charitable Foundation
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $153k
- $250k+6 grants · $3.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY | $1,000,000 |
| TEXAS WATER TRADE | $875,000 |
| TEXAS WATER FOUNDATION | $800,000 |
| TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY | $400,905 |
| TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY | $266,868 |
| TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY | $250,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $152,979 |
| INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| BIODIVERSITY FUNDERS GROUP | $10,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 42% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 Harte Charitable 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +102% since the first grant, against +63% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
- GOGULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE7× · 2018–2024 · $7.2M · revenue +102%
- TWTEXAS WATER TRADE7× · 2019–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +444% · 74% of their budget
- TWTEXAS WATER FOUNDATION5× · 2021–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +97%
Funded once
- NFNATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $250k · revenue +69%
- WMWilliam Marsh Rice Universitygraduatedone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +63%
- GOGulf Offshore Research Institutegraduatedone grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +58% · 59% of their budget
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Fish and wildlife conservation and outreach including public awareness. Fifteen public relations campaign on social media with over 7.5 million impressions. Twenty plus speaking engagements to a variety of conservation organizations…
The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species
To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Harte Research Institute Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
13 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. 13 of the 15 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 GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds TEXAS WATER TRADE ↗
- Who funds TEXAS WATER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Ocean Foundation ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds William Marsh Rice University ↗
- Who funds Gulf Offshore Research Institute ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION HISTORY ASSOCIATION OF TX ↗
- Who funds CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC Biodiversity Funders Grp ↗
- Who funds HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOUNDATION ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Amazonsmile 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 Harte Charitable 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 Harte Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Harte 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.