Skip to content
L E Foundation Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

L E Foundation Trust

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$5k
Granted FY2023
1
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Recreation & Sports$223kReligion$130kHealth$97kHuman Services$21kArts & Culture$16kEducation$8kYouth Development$2kInternational$300Other$0
02FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$26k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MEMORIAL DRIVD UNITED METHODIST CHU$5,000
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 (FY18–22, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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%MEMORIAL ASSISTANCE MINISTRIES: $15k → 16%MEMORIAL ASSISTANCE MINISTRIES: $5k → 16%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$469k · 13 repeat orgs$37k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2023, 13 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
15

Total granted

$469k
$32k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+55%
+68%

Still filing today

62%
53%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
EducationHealthYouth DevelopmentReligionArts & CultureHuman ServicesOther
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

  • TA
    Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation
    5× · 2017–2022 · $173k · revenue +55%
  • SC
    STONEY CREEK FOUNDATION
    4× · 2017–2020 · $50k · revenue +24%
  • AH
    American Heart Association Inc
    2× · 2018–2021 · $20k · revenue +26%

Funded once

  • BA
    BAND AGAINST MSINC
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -62%
  • BT
    BREAKTHROUGH T1Dgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +49%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $5k
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
Children's Cancer Fund of Dallas inc

Children's cancer fund champions kids in their fight against cancer through strategic investments in research and care in north texas.

Health
2
Md Anderson Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Baylor Research Institute

To improve the care and well being of our community, nationally and internationally, through innovative clinically relevant research that is consistent with the mission, vision and values of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH).

Health
4
Children's Cancer Research Fund

Children's cancer research fund fuels transformational research to bring better treatments and cures to children with cancer.

Philanthropy
5
Carson Leslie Foundation

To raise funds for research leading to a cure for pediatric cancer and enrich the lives of teens in the battle.

Health
6
Moody Medical Research Institute
—
7
Texas Trust Gives
Philanthropy
8
Scott & White Memorial Hospital

Founded as a Christian ministry of healing, Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) promotes the well-being of all individuals, families and communities.

Health
9
PACS1 Syndrome Research Foundation
Health
10
Texas Heart Institute

The mission of Texas Heart Institute (THI) is to reduce the devastating toll of cardiovascular disease through innovative and progressive programs in research, education, and improved patient care.

Health
11
Blood Cancer United Inc

Our mission is to cure leukemia, lymphoma, hodgkin's disease and myeloma, and improve the quality of life of patients and their families.

Health
12
Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Research Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas a&M Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Turn It Gold. 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

16 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. 16 of the 29 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
13/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation: $172,810 · EducationTexas A&M University 12th Man Foundati…+2 more: $1,150 · EducationMEMORIAL DRIVE UNITED METHODIST CHU: $123,000 · OtherMEMORIAL DRIVE UNITED METHODIST CHUBAND AGAINST MSINC: $10,000 · OtherBAND AGAINST MSINC+14 more: $32,350 · Other+14 moreTURN IT GOLD: $48,000 · HealthTURN IT GOLDAmerican Heart Association Inc: $20,000 · HealthAmerican Heart A…BREAKTHROUGH T1D: $5,000 · HealthBREAKTHROUGH T1DSTONEY CREEK FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Youth DevelopmentSTONEY CREE…CAMP BLESSING TEXAS INC: $1,875 · Youth DevelopmentMemorial Assistance Ministries: $20,000 · Human ServicesThe Hobby Center Foundation: $11,500 · Arts & CultureCANCARE INC: $10,000 · ReligionCARING FOREVER FOUNDATION: $500 · ReligionCHILDREN'S RELIEF INTERNATIONAL: $300 · International
Education$173,960Other$165,350Health$73,000Youth Development$51,875Human Services$20,000Arts & Culture$11,500Religion$10,500International$300

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 budgetTexas A&M University 12th Man Foundation: $172,810 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSTONEY CREEK FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetTURN IT GOLD: $48,000 over 3y, 5.5% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMemorial Assistance Ministries: $20,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetThe Hobby Center Foundation: $11,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBAND AGAINST MSINC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCANCARE INC: $10,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetBREAKTHROUGH T1D: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCAMP BLESSING TEXAS INC: $1,875 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSPRING BRANCH EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHOUSTON TRIDELTA PHILANTHROPIES INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCARING FOREVER FOUNDATION: $500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCHILDREN'S RELIEF INTERNATIONAL: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $150 over 1y, 0.0% 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 Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation ↗
  • Who funds STONEY CREEK FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TURN IT GOLD ↗
  • Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds Memorial Assistance Ministries ↗
  • Who funds The Hobby Center Foundation ↗
  • Who funds BAND AGAINST MSINC ↗
  • Who funds CANCARE INC ↗
  • Who funds BREAKTHROUGH T1D ↗
  • Who funds CAMP BLESSING TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds CHANCE FOR HOPE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SPRING BRANCH EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HOUSTON TRIDELTA PHILANTHROPIES INC ↗
  • Who funds CARING FOREVER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S RELIEF INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds Texas A&M Foundation ↗

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.

The Hg Ash FoundationGreater Houston Commu…Shell USA Company Fou…Strake FoundationAlbert & Ethel Herzst…Midway FoundationThe Looper FoundationThe Kayser FoundationMD Anderson FoundationJe and le Mabee Found…The Ayco Charitable F…Natl Christian Charit…
The Hg Ash FoundationTX30.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Hg Ash Foundation · Greater Houston Community Foundation · Shell USA Company Foundation · Strake Foundation · Albert & Ethel Herzstein Charitable Foundation · Midway Foundation · The Looper Foundation · The Kayser Foundation · MD Anderson Foundation · Je and le Mabee Foundation Inc · The Ayco Charitable Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc

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 L E Foundation Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from L E Foundation Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 L E Foundation Trust?

    Find your warmest path to L E Foundation Trust 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 29 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on L E’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