· Private foundation
Lee Ann and Steven Van Amburgh Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 61% of LEE ANN AND STEVEN VAN AMBURGH FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k32 grants · $110k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $257k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $146k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $96,005 |
| BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| MIDLAND CHILDREN'S REHABILITATION CENTER | $35,000 |
| HIGHLAND PARK EDUCATION FOUNDATION | $26,000 |
| THE SALVATION ARMY | $25,000 |
| CEDAR CREST GOLF COURSE | $23,646 |
| ADVOCATES FOR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION | $20,000 |
| HUMAN IMPACT | $17,000 |
| 24 HOUR CLUB | $16,500 |
| YOUTH BELIEVING IN CHANGE | $16,000 |
| MANE GAIT | $15,000 |
| FORT WORTH COUNTRY DAY | $12,500 |
| CHRIST'S FAMILY CLINIC | $10,000 |
| TEXAS VALUES | $10,000 |
| CRISTO REY DALLAS HIGH SCHOOL | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $202k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 59% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +42% since the first grant, against +39% for the ones you funded once.
46 repeat relationships — 29 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $218k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- YBYOUTH BELIEVING IN CHANGE INC7× · 2018–2024 · $100k · revenue +66%
- MGMane Gait8× · 2017–2024 · $83k · revenue +210%
- TMTHE MAGDALEN HOUSE6× · 2018–2023 · $57k · revenue +123%
Funded once
- COCITY OF REFUGE DALLASone grant, 2021 · $50k
- HPHIGHLAND PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHone grant, 2022 · $50k
- WCWATERMARK COMMUNITY CHURCHone grant, 2019 · $50k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
As a christian university, we provide education and research opportunities preparing global leaders to partner with local communities.
To support the mission of Dallas Theological Seminary by offering charitable planned giving and other related services to friends of the Seminary.
The mission of criswell college is to provide ministerial and professional higher education for men and women preparing to serve as christian leaders throughout society, while maintaining an institutional commitment to biblical inerrancy.
The foundation's mission is to strengthen and support faith communities by partnering wise investments with purposeful giving.
Dallas Christian is a college preparatory school committed to Biblical values where students are prepared for Christ-centered lives of purpose, service and leadership.
National Christian Foundation North Texas (NCFNT) was created to facilitate smarter Christian giving with sophisticated charitable techniques.
The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.
The texas tribune promotes civic engagement and public education across the state by producing and sharing for free public data interactives, statewide events and intensive and daily reporting on texas public policy, politics and current…
To recognize the accomplishments and contributions of our outstanding Texas business leaders and to perpetuate and inspire the values of entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity, and community leadership in all generations of Texans.
Leadership austin connects and develops leaders to courageously engage and transform our communities.
The trinity charter schools system has 11 campuses in texas. all 11 campuses work with youth who have emotional difficulties, and need active engagement in planning and guiding their own academic careers through student led credit…
To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Salesmanship Club Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Family Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 31 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 16% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
87 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 87 of the 144 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds YOUTH BELIEVING IN CHANGE INC ↗
- Who funds Mane Gait ↗
- Who funds THE MAGDALEN HOUSE ↗
- Who funds THE HUMAN IMPACT ↗
- Who funds ADVOCATES FOR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION ↗
- Who funds MIDLAND CHILDRENS REHABILITATION CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds COOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC ↗
- Who funds Turner 12 ↗
- Who funds CLAYTON DABNEY LEGACY FUND ↗
- Who funds The Family Place ↗
- Who funds SCHOLARSHOT ↗
- Who funds HIGHLAND PARK ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEXAS VALUES ↗
- Who funds THE FAMILY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PROJECT SHELTER INC ↗
- Who funds I Am A Golfer Foundation ↗
- Who funds WEST TEXAS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds FELLOWSHIP OF CHRISTIAN ATHLETES ↗
- Who funds MEN OF NEHEMIAH INC ↗
- Who funds KERSHAW'S CHALLENGE ↗
- Who funds Recovery Resource Council ↗
- Who funds RIVERTREE ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTH TEXAS (TAX ↗
- Who funds AUSTIN STREET CENTER ↗
- Who funds BEHIND EVERY DOOR MINISTRIES INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · The Dallas Foundation · The Rees-Jones Foundation · W P & Bulah Luse Foundation · Texas Women's Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · The Moody Foundation · Hillcrest Foundation · Meadows Foundation Inc · United Way of Metropolitan Dallas Inc · Hoblitzelle Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Lee Ann and Steven Van Amburgh Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Wounded Warrior Project Inc — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Lee Ann and Steven Van Amburgh Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Lee Ann and Steven Van Amburgh 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.