Skip to content

· Public charity

Keep Texas Beautiful Inc

To inspire and empower texans to keep our communities clean and beautiful

$362k
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$81k
Largest
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Environment$420kPublic Benefit$91kPhilanthropy$20kCommunity Improvement$17kOther$0
02FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 15 grants below total $290,676, the rows itemized in this filing. The $362,326 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $71,650 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $30k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $180k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $81k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF FLORESVILLE$81,000
BURLESON COUNTY$42,944
KEEP SAN MARCOS BEAUTIFUL$36,130
CITY OF INGLESIDE$22,000
FAYETTE COUNTY$20,000
KEEP WACO BEAUTIFUL$18,000
DON'T MAKE WASTE BANDERA$11,000
KEEP CUERO BEAUTIFUL$10,000
FORT CLARK SPRING$10,000
KEEP VICTORIA BEAUTIFUL$10,000
POLK COUNTY RECYCLING & BEAUTIFICATION$6,500
KEEP HOUSTON BEAUTIFUL$6,100
KEEP IT REAL-LY BEAUTIFUL$6,000
GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION$5,502
KEEP TEMPLE BEAUTIFUL$5,500
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 61% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%KEEP WESTON LAKES BEAUTIFUL: $9k → 8%KEEP SAN MARCOS BEAUTIFUL: $36k → 10%KEEP LAKE JACKSON BEAUTIFUL: $10k → 10%CITY OF FLORESVILLE: $81k → 11%FAYETTE COUNTY: $20k → 11%DON'T MAKE WASTE BANDERA: $11k → 12%KEEP SAN ANGELO BEAUTIFUL: $10k → 13%GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION: $14k → 14%KEEP MIDLAND BEAUTIFUL: $7k → 14%KEEP TEMPLE BEAUTIFUL: $6k → 14%BURLESON COUNTY: $43k → 15%KEEP VICTORIA BEAUTIFUL: $10k → 16%KEEP WACO BEAUTIFUL: $18k → 16%BUFFALO BAYOU PARTNERSHIP: $8k → 16%KEEP IT REAL-LY BEAUTIFUL: $6k → 17%CITY OF INGLESIDE: $22k → 17%KEEP ARANSAS COUNTY BEAUTIFUL: $8k → 17%CITY OF BROWNWOOD: $6k → 17%POLK COUNTY RECYCLING & BEAUTIFICATION: $7k → 19%CITY OF CUERO: $14k → 20%FORT CLARK SPRING: $10k → 21%CITY OF PHARR: $20k → 27%KEEP SAN MARCOS BEAUTIFUL: $20k → 10%FAYETTE COUNTY: $16k → 11%GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION: $6k → 14%KEEP MIDLAND BEAUTIFUL: $6k → 14%BURLESON COUNTY: $38k → 15%KEEP HOUSTON BEAUTIFUL: $6k → 16%CITY OF INGLESIDE: $14k → 17%KEEP CUERO BEAUTIFUL: $10k → 20%FORT CLARK SPRING: $10k → 21%KEEP FRIENDSWOOD BEAUTIFUL: $10k → 14%KEEP ARANSAS PASS BEAUTIFUL: $10k → 17%KEEP CUERO BEAUTIFUL: $6k → 20%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.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$390k · 6 repeat orgs$208k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +41% since the first grant, against -44% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
12

Total granted

$390k
$169k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
-44%

Still filing today

50%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $39k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’20’21’23’24
EnvironmentCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • KT
    KEEP TEXAS BEAUTIFUL INC
    2× · 2018–2024 · $234k · revenue +41%
  • KM
    KEEP MCALLEN BEAUTIFUL INC
    3× · 2021–2023 · $71k · revenue +10%
  • KM
    KEEP MIDLAND BEAUTIFUL INC
    2× · 2020–2023 · $13k · revenue +69%

Funded once

  • BC
    BURLESON COUNTY
    one grant, 2023 · $38k
  • KS
    KEEP SAN MARCOS BEAUTIFUL
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
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
Keep Brazos Beautiful

Our mission is to educate and engage Brazos County citizens to keep our community clean, green, and beautiful.

Environment
2
Keep Thomas County Beautiful Inc

Keep Thomas County Beautiful (KTCB)believes that each of us has a responsibility to protect and improve our environment. We support local coalitions of volunteers, businesses and government entities in enhancing our communities by…

Environment
3
Keep Brown County Beautiful
Environment
4
Keep Pearland Beautiful

Litter prevention, minimizing the effects of solid waste on the community, and the beautification of the city of pearland, texas.

—
5
Keep Sevier Beautiful

The organizations purpose is to encourage litter prevention, recycling and solid waste reduction in sevier county, tennessee

Arts & Culture
6
Keep Livingston Parish Beautiful Inc

To promote beautification and a litter-free community.

Environment
7
Keep Miles City Beautiful

Community liter control, recycling and beautification

Environment
8
Recycling Alliance of Texas

The mission is to advance recycling through partnerships, education, and advocacy for the benefit of texas.

Environment
9
Mindful Waste
—
10
Keep Knoxville Beautiful Inc

To inspire and empower Knox County communities to improve their quality of life through beautification and environmental stewardship.

Environment
11
Keep Akron Beautiful

Keep akron beautiful improves the quality of life for city of akron, oh residents through the beautification of the city and through responsible environmental management.

Environment
12
Big Thicket Biosphere Reserve

The Big Thicket Biosphere Reserve's mission is community-based conservation to reconnect people with the natural and cultural environment while promoting sustainable economic growth in Southeast Texas.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Keep Texas Beautiful Inc; the most unlike its peers is Buffalo Bayou Partnership Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 23 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KEEP MCALLEN BEAUTIFUL INC: $71,257 · OtherKEEP MCALLEN BEAUTIFUL INCBURLESON COUNTY: $38,400 · OtherBURLESON COUNTYCITY OF INGLESIDE: $36,400 · OtherCITY OF INGLESIDEKEEP SAN MARCOS BEAUTIFUL: $20,328 · OtherKEEP SAN MARCOS BEAUTIFULIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherGALVESTON BAY FOUNDATIONFAYETTE COUNTY: $16,110 · OtherKEEP CUERO BEAUTIFUL INC: $16,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $14,400 · OtherDONT MAKE WASTE BANDERA: $11,000 · Other+5 more: $44,810 · Other+5 moreKEEP TEXAS BEAUTIFUL INC: $234,174 · EnvironmentKEEP TEXAS BEAUTIFUL INCKEEP MIDLAND BEAUTIFUL INC: $12,500 · Environment+5 more: $33,151 · Environment+5 moreKEEP SAN ANGELO BEAUTIFUL: $9,600 · Community Improvement
Other$308,705Environment$279,825Community Improvement$9,600

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetKEEP TEXAS BEAUTIFUL INC: $234,174 over 2y, 16% of budgetKEEP MCALLEN BEAUTIFUL INC: $71,257 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetKEEP MIDLAND BEAUTIFUL INC: $12,500 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetKEEP SAN ANGELO BEAUTIFUL: $9,600 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetBuffalo Bayou Partnership Inc: $7,586 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPOLK COUNTY RECYCLING AND BEAUTIFICATION: $6,500 over 1y, 11% of budgetKEEP TEMPLE BEAUTIFUL: $5,500 over 1y, 15% 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 KEEP TEXAS BEAUTIFUL INC ↗
  • Who funds KEEP MCALLEN BEAUTIFUL INC ↗
  • Who funds KEEP MIDLAND BEAUTIFUL INC ↗
  • Who funds KEEP SAN ANGELO BEAUTIFUL ↗
  • Who funds Buffalo Bayou Partnership Inc ↗
  • Who funds Keep Aransas County Beautiful Inc ↗
  • Who funds POLK COUNTY RECYCLING AND BEAUTIFICATION ↗
  • Who funds KEEP IT REAL BEAUTIFUL ↗
  • Who funds KEEP TEMPLE BEAUTIFUL ↗

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 FoundationWA1.1× 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 Keep Texas Beautiful Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Keep Texas Beautiful Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 23 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 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 Keep Texas Beautiful’s filings →

    More from the funding graph