Skip to content

· Private foundation

Martin Woodall Foundation Inc

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
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Health$138kEnvironment$46kHousing & Shelter$30kHuman Services$20kYouth Development$8kArts & Culture$7k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$8,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$997k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AUTISM TREATMENT CENTER$10,000
CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF NORTH TEXAS$10,000
TEXAS DISCOVERY GARDENS$9,000
CLAYTON DABNEY FOUNDATION FOR KIDS$8,000
CHILDREN'S CRANIOFACIAL ASSOCIATION$4,000
OPERATION UNDERGROUND RAILROAD INC$2,000
SMILETRAIN$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 (FY22–24, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BRYAN'S HOUSE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%BRYAN'S HOUSE FOUNDATION: $10k → 14%CLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER: $5k → 14%CLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER: $5k → 14%CLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER: $3k → 14%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$222k · 9 repeat orgs$27k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against -9% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
1

Total granted

$222k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
-9%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesArts & CultureOther
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

  • TD
    TEXAS DISCOVERY GARDENS
    6× · 2020–2025 · $46k · revenue +47%
  • CC
    CHILDREN'S CRANIOFACIAL ASSOCIATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $20k · revenue +71%
  • BH
    BRYANS HOUSE FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $20k · revenue +87%

Funded once

  • CS
    CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY NORTH TEXAS
    one grant, 2020 · $7k · revenue -9%
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
Sunny Glen Children's Home Inc

Sunny Glen Childrens Home, Inc. cares for children in need. Our care will be competent, compassionate and professional. We will help every child achieve their greatest potential-physically, emotionally, spiritually and academically.

Human Services
3
The Foundation for Faces of Children

The Foundation for Faces of Children is dedicated to improving the lives of children with craniofacial differences, including cleft lip, cleft palate, and other head and facial conditions. Our mission is to provide patients and families…

—
4
Lancaster Cleft Palate Clinic

The lancaster cleft palate clinic (lcpc) is a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for infants, children, and adults through comprehensive coordinated team treatment of craniofacial conditions resulting from…

Health
5
Curing Kids Cancer Inc

The Organization was formed in 2005 and is dedicated to changing the world of childhood cancer by bringing awareness to childhood cancer and by funding the development of treatments, primarily in the United States, that are more effective…

Human Services
6
Central Texas Children's Home

To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.

Human Services
7
Children's Health System of Texas

With more than 1 million patient visits each year, Children's Health is North Texas' leading pediatric health system and among the largest in the nation. For more than a century, our mission has been clear: make life better for children.…

Health
8
Clayton Dabney Legacy Fund

The organization's primary purpose is to support the charitable and educational programs of clayton dabney for kids with cancer, a texas nonprofit corporation.

Health
9
Dallas Center Inc

To provide individualized services that positively impact the lives of 0-3 year old children with developmental disabilities/delays and their families.

Human Services
10
The Blue Bird Circle

The Blue Bird Circle (the Circle) is dedicated to the promotion of the well-being of humanity through the betterment of the community. Its charitable and benevolent activities are pledged to the support of The Blue Bird Circle Clinic for…

Health
11
Curesearch for Children's Cancer

Curesearch's mission is to fund & support targeted & innovative cancer research with measurable results, & to be the authoritative source of information & resources for all those affected by children's cancer. see schedule o for…

Health
12
North Central Texas Medical Foundation
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Community North Texas; the most unlike its peers is Bryans House Foundation. 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

8 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. 8 of the 13 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AUTISTIC TREATMENT CENTER INC: $47,000 · OtherAUTISTIC TREATMENT CENTER INCTEXAS DISCOVERY GARDENS: $46,000 · OtherTEXAS DISCOVERY GARDENSBRYAN'S HOUSE: $30,000 · OtherBRYAN'S HOUSECANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY: $30,000 · OtherCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITYSMILE TRAIN INC: $11,000 · OtherSMILE TRAIN INCCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $10,000 · OtherCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY OF NORTH TEXASCLAYTON DABNEY FOUNDATION FOR KIDS: $8,000 · Other+1 more: $5,000 · OtherBRYANS HOUSE FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Human ServicesBRYANS HOUSE FO…CLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER: $13,000 · Human ServicesCLAYTON DABNEY …CHILDREN'S CRANIOFACIAL ASSOCIATION: $20,000 · HealthCHILDREN'S C…CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY NORTH TEXAS: $7,000 · HealthCANCER SUPPO…OUR RESCUE: $2,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$187,000Human Services$33,000Health$27,000Arts & Culture$2,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAUTISTIC TREATMENT CENTER INC: $47,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTEXAS DISCOVERY GARDENS: $46,000 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetCHILDREN'S CRANIOFACIAL ASSOCIATION: $20,000 over 6y, 0.6% of budgetCLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER: $13,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $11,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY NORTH TEXAS: $7,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetOUR RESCUE: $2,000 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 AUTISTIC TREATMENT CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS DISCOVERY GARDENS ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S CRANIOFACIAL ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds BRYANS HOUSE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CLAYTON DABNEY FOR KIDS WITH CANCER ↗
  • Who funds SMILE TRAIN INC ↗
  • Who funds CANCER SUPPORT COMMUNITY NORTH TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds OUR RESCUE ↗

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 Dallas FoundationTX15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Dallas Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Theodore and Beulah Beasley Foundation Inc · Celanese Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Martin Woodall Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Martin Woodall Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    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 · 0–5%
    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.

    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 13 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 Martin Woodall’s filings →

    More from the funding graph