· Private foundation
Meta Alice Keith Bratten Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $6k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| ARTWORKS FOUNDATION | $2,500 |
| ENTRADA | $575 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 4% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 28% of Meta Alice Keith Bratten Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +73% since the first grant, against +50% for the ones you funded once.
26 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 25 since wound down; 3 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, 16% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k 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
- CFCOLORADO FOURTEENERS INITIATIVE3× · 2018–2022 · $61k · revenue +35%
- VCVan Cliburn Foundation Inc3× · 2017–2022 · $45k · revenue +240%
- ACAMON CARTER MUSEUM OF WESTERN ART5× · 2017–2022 · $33k · revenue +48%
Funded once
- YYMCAone grant, 2022 · $80k
- NSNEAR SOUTHSIDE INCone grant, 2021 · $50k
- CCCentral Colorado Conservacygraduatedone grant, 2019 · $38k · revenue +160%
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.
Protecting the open land and special places of the roaring fork and middle colorado river valleys for wildlife, agriculture, and community forever.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation (TPWF) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization thatadvances Texas proud outdoor traditions through meaningful, high-impact programs,partnerships, and a wide range of projects that conserve and enhance our…
The principal mission of the land trust is to work with landowners to protect agricultural and forest lands, water resources, wildlife habitat and scenic open spaces, and to serve our community by facilitating parks and trail in custer,…
Rocky mountain wild works to protect, connect, and restore wildlife and wild lands in the southern rocky mountain region. we work to secure the biodiversity of the mountains, plains, and desert ecosystems of colorado, wyoming, utah, and…
To unite, elevate and empower colorado's conservation community to protect the lands and waters that define our state.
Be a catalyst! Ignite our community's passion for nature and science.
Rocky Mountain Field Institute conserves and protects public lands in Southern Colorado through volunteer-based trail and restoration projects, environmental education, and restoration research.
To empower visitors and locals to explore, learn about and protect the spectacular public lands of Southwest Colorado.
To provide, improve, and maintain, through voluntary public involvement and in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, a linear, non-motorized, sustainable, scenic, recreation trail corridor for hikers,…
The santa fe conservation trust partners with our community to keep northern new mexico's living lands and people flourishing together. we protect culturally and environmentally significant landscapes, ignite people's passion for nature…
The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) works to sustain a resilient Texas by preserving coastal prairies, wetlands, farms, and ranches to benefit people and wildlife forever. Continued on Schedule OCPC conserves land, restores and enhances…
To protect and enhance agricultural land, wildlife habitat and scenic lands in western colorado to benefit the community at large, enrich lives, and provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for future generations.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of Big Bend National Park and the most unlike its peers is Moab Valley Multicultural Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 33 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 28% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 17% 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.
39 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. 39 of the 62 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 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTH TEXAS (TAX ↗
- Who funds COLORADO FOURTEENERS INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Van Cliburn Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds Abilene Education Foundation ↗
- Who funds Central Colorado Conservacy ↗
- Who funds AMON CARTER MUSEUM OF WESTERN ART ↗
- Who funds FORT WORTH REPORT ↗
- Who funds MADISON SQUARE PARK CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds SCENIC TEXAS ↗
- Who funds BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds CHAFFEE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE PRESBYTERIAN NIGHT SHELTER OF TARRANT COUNTY ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK ↗
- Who funds SALIDA CONCERTS INC ↗
- Who funds MEDICAL MINISTRY INTERNATIONAL US ↗
- Who funds COWTOWN MARATHON INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE FORT WORTH NATURE CENTER & REFUGE INC ↗
- Who funds FORT WORTH TENNIS PATRONS ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds Guidestone ↗
- Who funds THE JUNIOR LEAGUE OF FORT WORTH INC ↗
- Who funds ACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ↗
- Who funds SPAY NEUTER NETWORK ↗
- Who funds PHILANTHROPY SOUTHWEST ↗
- Who funds Fort Worth Garden Club Inc ↗
- Who funds ARTWORKS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Mimir Chamber Music Festival ↗
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: Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation Inc · Amon G Carter Foundation · The Roach Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Bnsf Railway Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Chaffee County Community Foundation · Garvey Texas Foundation Inc · Texas Instruments Foundation · Colorado Gives Foundation · Terrell and Patsy Small Family Foundation · Robert D and Catherine R Alexander 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 Meta Alice Keith Bratten 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.
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 Meta Alice Keith Bratten Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Meta Alice Keith Bratten 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.