Skip to content
Harte Charitable Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$3.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.0M
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Animals$7.5MEnvironment$5.3MEducation$3.6MHealth$1.2MSocial Science$401kScience & Tech$282kInternational$178k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $153k
  • $250k+6 grants · $3.6M
$266,868
Median grant
2
States reached
$32M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 42% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%BIODIVERSITY FUNDERS GROUP: $10k → 10%INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $153k → 11%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $875k → 10%WILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 16%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $1.0M → 17%US ENDOWMENT FOR FORESTRY & COMMUNI: $173k → 10%NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $250k → 14%GULF OFFSHORE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $25k → 23%GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $1.7M → 7%INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 11%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $375k → 10%TEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION: $1.0M → 17%US ENDOWMENT FOR FORESTRY & COMMUNI: $10k → 10%OCEAN FOUNDATION: $260k → 14%GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $1.3M → 7%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $300k → 10%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $459k → 17%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $250k → 14%GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $1.2M → 7%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $252k → 10%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $401k → 17%OCEAN FOUNDATION: $250k → 14%GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $1.2M → 7%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $250k → 10%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $356k → 17%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $125k → 14%GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $669k → 7%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $188k → 10%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $334k → 17%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $125k → 14%GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $618k → 7%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $188k → 10%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $269k → 17%OCEAN FOUNDATION: $125k → 14%GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $500k → 7%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $267k → 17%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $125k → 14%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $267k → 17%AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $125k → 14%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $267k → 17%OCEAN FOUNDATION: $125k → 14%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $250k → 17%OCEAN FOUNDATION: $50k → 14%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $220k → 17%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $100k → 17%TEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION: $99k → 17%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $50k → 17%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $25k → 17%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 8% of Harte Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Harte Charitable Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
$18M · 9 repeat orgs$345k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +102% since the first grant, against +63% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
4

Total granted

$18M
$335k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+102%
+63%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationEnvironmentAnimalsFood & NutritionScience & TechOther
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

  • GO
    GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
    7× · 2018–2024 · $7.2M · revenue +102%
  • TW
    TEXAS WATER TRADE
    7× · 2019–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +444% · 74% of their budget
  • TW
    TEXAS WATER FOUNDATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +97%

Funded once

  • NF
    NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $250k · revenue +69%
  • WM
    William Marsh Rice Universitygraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue +63%
  • GO
    Gulf Offshore Research Institutegraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +58% · 59% of their budget
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
Gulf Fishery Research Foundation
Environment
2
Oceanit Research Foundation
Science & Tech
3
Conservation International Foundation

Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.

Environment
4
Texas Foundation for Conservation

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…

Animals
5
Global Foundation for Oceanographic & Atmospheric Research Inc
Philanthropy
6
California Wildlife Foundation

The foundation works with diverse groups representing many interests to acquire and restore critical wildlife habitat and protecting species

Animals
7
Texas a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
8
World Wildlife Fund Inc

Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)

Environment
9
The Coral Reef and Marine Science Foundation Inc C/O James Bildner
—
10
Tex-E Inc
Education
11
Houston Geological Society Foundation
—
12
Schmidt Ocean Institute
Science & Tech
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; 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.
05the grantee network

13 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. 13 of the 15 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $7,203,622 · AnimalsGULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTENATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $250,000 · AnimalsTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $4,264,202 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYUS ENDOWMENT FOR FORESTRY & COMMUNI: $182,500 · Other+1 more: $7,345 · OtherTEXAS WATER TRADE: $2,427,219 · EnvironmentTEXAS WATER TRADETEXAS WATER FOUNDATION: $1,150,000 · EnvironmentTEXAS WATER FOUNDATIONThe Ocean Foundation: $810,000 · EnvironmentThe Ocean FoundationTEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION: $1,098,546 · EducationWilliam Marsh Rice University: $50,000 · Education+2 more: $35,000 · EducationAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $750,000 · Food & NutritionINTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $177,979 · PhilanthropyCONSULTATIVE GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC Biodiversity Funders Grp: $10,000 · Science & Tech
Animals$7,453,622Other$4,454,047Environment$4,387,219Education$1,183,546Food & Nutrition$750,000Philanthropy$177,979Science & Tech$10,000

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 budgetGULF OF MAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $7,203,622 over 7y, 9.6% of budgetTEXAS WATER TRADE: $2,427,219 over 7y, 74% of budgetTEXAS WATER FOUNDATION: $1,150,000 over 5y, 11% of budgetTEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI FOUNDATION: $1,098,546 over 2y, 44% of budgetThe Ocean Foundation: $810,000 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetAMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST: $750,000 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetNATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION: $250,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $177,979 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetWilliam Marsh Rice University: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGulf Offshore Research Institute: $25,000 over 1y, 59% of budgetCONSERVATION HISTORY ASSOCIATION OF TX: $10,000 over 1y, 6.1% 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Harte Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Harte Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%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
    1report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 15 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Harte’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