Skip to content
Landman Scholarship Trust at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Landman Scholarship Trust

Provide scholarships for the benefit and assistance of qualified students of accredited colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher learning, which students desire to obtain education and training in the field of natural resources management.

$243k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$49k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Education$1.7M
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $232,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $243,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $11,000 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $216k
$28,250
Median grant
6
States reached
$10M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA$49,000
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY$36,250
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY$33,750
WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY$30,000
COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY$28,250
UNIVERSITY OF TULSA$23,750
MARIETTA COLLEGE$15,000
UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING$8,500
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - PERMIAN BASIN$7,500
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 89% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN: $10k → 10%TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $10k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF LAW: $20k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TULSA: $50k → 15%OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY: $25k → 16%WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $35k → 10%COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $58k → 11%MARIETTA COLLEGE: $15k → 15%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $33k → 19%TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $10k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF LAW: $13k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TULSA: $45k → 15%OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY: $20k → 16%WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $33k → 10%COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $40k → 11%MARIETTA COLLEGE: $13k → 15%West Virginia University: $28k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF LAW: $10k → 13%University of Tulsa: $30k → 15%OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY: $10k → 16%WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY: $30k → 10%COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $33k → 11%MARIETTA COLLEGE: $10k → 15%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $34k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF LAW: $10k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TULSA: $25k → 15%WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $15k → 10%COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $28k → 11%MARIETTA COLLEGE: $10k → 15%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $25k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF LAW: $10k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TULSA: $15k → 15%WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $13k → 10%COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $16k → 11%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $28k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION: $83k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF TULSA: $10k → 15%COLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $15k → 11%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $23k → 19%University of Oklahoma Foundation: $63k → 13%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $25k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $49k → 13%WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY: $15k → 19%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $44k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $34k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION: $33k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $32k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $27k → 13%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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 12 repeat orgs$18k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
1

Total granted

$1.6M
$10k

Still filing today

50%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

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

  • The University of Tulsa
    9× · 2017–2025 · $236k · revenue +8%
  • WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $155k · revenue +177%
  • OC
    OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY
    4× · 2018–2024 · $62k · revenue +38%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 14 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: $215,750 · OtherTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY SYSTEMSTATE OF WEST VIRGINIA: $208,750 · OtherSTATE OF WEST VIRGINIACOLORADO MESA UNIVERSITY: $189,250 · OtherCOLORADO MESA UNIVERSITYWESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $155,000 · OtherWESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONUNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $62,500 · OtherUNVERSITY OF OKLAHOMAUNIVERSITY OF WYOMING: $51,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WYOMING+3 more: $35,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $363,375 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INCThe University of Tulsa: $236,250 · EducationThe University of TulsaOKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY: $62,084 · EducationOKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITYMarietta College: $47,500 · EducationMarietta CollegeTEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $27,500 · Education
Other$917,250Education$736,709

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC: $363,375 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetThe University of Tulsa: $236,250 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetWESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $155,000 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetOKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY: $62,084 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMarietta College: $47,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $27,500 over 3y, 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 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds The University of Tulsa ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN COLORADO UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Marietta College ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY ↗

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.

National Collegiate A…American Chemical Soc…Folds of Honor Founda…Tulsa Community Found…Hispanic Scholarship …Johns Hopkins Univers…
National Collegiate Athletic AssociationIN19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Collegiate Athletic Association · American Chemical Society · Folds of Honor Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · Hispanic Scholarship Fund · Johns Hopkins University

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • The University of Tulsa: 5% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
2report 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 14 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Landman Scholarship’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