Skip to content

· Private foundation

Jack and Phyllis Curtis 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.

$45k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$28k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Religion$282kEducation$66kAnimals$35kArts & Culture$16kYouth Development$10kHuman Services$9kHealth$6kFood & Nutrition$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $28k
$3,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$883k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST MATTHEW'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH$28,000
PAMPA ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY (PAWS)$4,500
ST JUDE CHILDRENS RESEARCH HOSPITAL$3,500
TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION$3,500
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT$3,500
PAMPA YOUTH & COMMUNITY CENTER$2,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: $4k → 14%WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: $3k → 14%GOOD SMARITIAN CHRISTIAN SERVICES: $2k → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$344k · 8 repeat orgs$90k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
14

Total granted

$344k
$90k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+12%
+17%

Still filing today

63%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthArts & CultureAnimalsEducationOther
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

  • PY
    PAMPA YOUTH AND COMMUNITY CENTER INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $9k · revenue +231%
  • PA
    PAMPA ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $9k · revenue +250%
  • WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $6k · revenue +12%

Funded once

  • SM
    ST MATTHEWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH SCHOOL
    one grant, 2019 · $51k
  • SA
    ST ANDREWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • SM
    ST MATTHEWS EPISCOPAL DAY SCHOOL
    one grant, 2017 · $9k
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
West Texas Food Bank

The WTFB exists to collect, purchase, and distribute food to feed the hungry in 19 counties in West Texas in partnership with volunteers and community organizations and to educate these partners and the public at large about the real face…

—
2
Feeding Texas

To lead a unified effort for a hunger-free texas.

Community Improvement
3
Food Bank of West Central Texas

To procure and distribute nutritional food to qualified agencies that feed the hungry of West Central Texas.

Food & Nutrition
4
Goodwill Industries of Tulsa Inc

Goodwill empowers people to reach their full potential through work opportunities, training, and support services.

Employment
5
Southeast Texas Food Bank Inc

Food distribution to the hungry throughout an eight county service territory in Southeast Texas.

Human Services
6
South Plains Food Bank Inc

The South Plains Food Bank, Inc. is a humanitarian resource responsible for securing, growing, processing, and distributing food to charitable organizations and persons in need. South Plains Food Bank, Inc. also strives to provide…

Food & Nutrition
7
Hospice of South Texas Inc

Hospice care of terminally ill patients

—
8
El Buen Samaritano Episcopal Mission

El Buen Samaritano an outreach ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas serving the Latino community of Central Texas is committed to recognizing the dignity of all by ensuring access to health care education and essential needs that…

—
9
Planned Parenthood of Greater Tx Surgical Health Services Inc

Planned parenthood of greater texas surgical health services was established and maintains operations to support and provide clinical health services to its patients in texas, as permitted by law in the organizations clinical settings.

Health
10
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health provides comprehensive and complementary health care services in settings that preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of the individual, advocates…

Health
11
Women's Shelter of South Texas

The mission of the purple door is to empower the community and those affected by domestic violence and sexual assault to transition to a safe and healthy environment.

—
12
South Texas Food Bank

To alleviate hunger in the immediate service area through the distribution of food products donated by the usda, feeding america, area grocery stores, etc. which are distributed to the needy by way of area food banks and other qualified…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Hope and Healing Place Inc; the most unlike its peers is Pampa Animal Welfare Society. 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

11 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. 11 of the 22 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST MATTHEWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $270,948 · OtherST MATTHEWS EPISCOPAL CHURCHST MATTHEWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH SCHOOL: $51,000 · OtherST MATTHEWS EPISCOPAL CHURCH SCHOOLPAMPA ANIMAL PAWS WELFARE SOCIETY: $26,000 · OtherPAMPA ANIMAL PAWS WELFARE SOCIETY+10 more: $46,500 · Other+10 moreWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesFAITH CITY INC: $3,000 · Human ServicesEPISCOPAL RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT: $2,000 · Human ServicesGood Samaritan Christian Services Inc: $2,000 · Human ServicesPAMPA ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY: $9,000 · AnimalsST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $6,000 · HealthTHE HOPE AND HEALING PLACE INC: $1,000 · HealthSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $6,000 · EducationWINDOW ON A WIDER WORLD INC: $4,500 · Arts & Culture
Other$394,448Human Services$13,000Animals$9,000Health$7,000Education$6,000Arts & Culture$4,500

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 budgetPAMPA YOUTH AND COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $9,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetPAMPA ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY: $9,000 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetWOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWINDOW ON A WIDER WORLD INC: $4,500 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetEPISCOPAL RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHIGH PLAINS FOOD BANK: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HOPE AND HEALING PLACE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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 PAMPA YOUTH AND COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PAMPA ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
  • Who funds WINDOW ON A WIDER WORLD INC ↗
  • Who funds FAITH CITY INC ↗
  • Who funds EPISCOPAL RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds Good Samaritan Christian Services Inc ↗
  • Who funds HIGH PLAINS FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds THE HOPE AND HEALING PLACE 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.

Amarillo Area Foundation IncTX17.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amarillo Area Foundation Inc · David D & Nona S Payne Foundation Inc · Dr Kent Roberts & Ilene Roberts Balliett Foundation · Josephine Anderson Charitable Trust · Xcel Energy Foundation · The Sidwell Foundation · William & Louise Mullins Foundation · Gray-Pampa Foundation Inc · M K Brown Foundation Inc · Kimble Foundation Trust · Cj and Syble Fowlston Charitable Trust · Mays 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 Jack and Phyllis Curtis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jack and Phyllis Curtis 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Wounded Warrior Project Inc: 0% of 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
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
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 22 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 Jack and Phyllis Curtis’ filings →

More from the funding graph