Skip to content
Ming Chen Burdett Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ming Chen Burdett Foundation

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.

$7k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$3k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$11kCommunity Improvement$4kRecreation & Sports$3kHuman Services$2kPublic Benefit$2kReligion$2kInternational$1kHealth$625Other$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$65k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TAMU HOCKEY FOUNDATION INC$3,300
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION$3,000
FORT BEND CARE CENTER$500
THE CENTURY CANCER FUND$200
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 (FY17–25, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 50% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%HOLLY CHILD CHARITY: $500 → 8%HOLLY CHILD CHARITY: $500 → 8%CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER: $2k → 16%FORT BEND CARE CENTER: $500 → 8%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.

38%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10k · 6 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 1 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

6
12

Total granted

$10k
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+17%

Still filing today

67%
42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 3% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementHealthPublic BenefitPhilanthropyOther
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 DEBATE COLLECTIVE INC
    3× · 2018–2023 · $5k · revenue +64%
  • FV
    FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL OF COLORADO
    3× · 2021–2023 · $2k · revenue +24%
  • HC
    Holy Child Charity Inc
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • TA
    Texas A&M Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $3k · revenue +48%
  • CC
    CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER INC
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +17%
  • IL
    INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +36%
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
Houston Christian Foundation dba National Christian Foundation Houston

As the Houston affiliate of the National Christian Foundation (NCF), our mission is to serve and encourage givers to grow as faithful stewards who give wisely to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

—
2
Collaborative for Children

The mission of Collaborative for Children is to meaningfully improve the quality of early childhood education and care for Greater Houston's children through those most influential in their lives.

Human Services
3
Progress Texas Institute

The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.

Civil Rights
4
Houston Independent School District Foundation

The HISD Foundation is dedicated to mobilizing the local community to support innovative priorities in HISD to improve outcomes for all students in the district. Our mission is to fund projects and programs of merit that fall outside of…

—
5
Trees for Houston

Plant, protect and promote trees all over the greater Houston area.

—
6
Houston Christian University

The mission of houston christian university is to provide a learning experience that instills in students a passion for academic, spiritual, and professional excellence as a result of our central confession, "jesus christ is lord."

—
7
Hill Country Montessori School Inc

Provide quality education for students from pre school through middle school using the Montessori method of learning and teaching.

Education
8
Texas Business Hall of Fame Foundation

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.

Community Improvement
9
Presbyterian School

Family, School, and Church united in the education and support of each child - this is the founding premise upon which Presbyterian School nurtures and challenges its students. The school provides an educational program of the highest…

Education
10
Houston Botanic Garden

To enrich life through discovery, education, and the conservation of plants and the natural environment.

Environment
11
The Woodlands Christian Academy

TWCA is an independent, Christ-centered college preparatory school that integrates learning with biblical faith and challenges our students to reach their highest potential - intellectually, creatively, physically, and socially - for the…

—
12
Texas a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas a&M Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Holy Child Charity Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 21 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
8/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE INC: $5,030 · EducationTEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE INCTexas A&M Foundation: $2,700 · EducationTexas A&M FoundationFOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL OF COLORADO: $2,225 · EducationFOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL OF COLORADOTAMU HOCKEY FOUNDATION INC: $3,300 · OtherTAMU HOCKEY FOUNDATION INCAmerican Leadership Forum Houston Gulf Coast Chapter: $1,000 · OtherAmerican Leadership Forum Houston G…THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $750 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXASINTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST PROGRESS SOCIETY: $728 · OtherINTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST PROGRESS SOC…GLOBAL FEDERATION OF CHINESE BUSINESS WOEMEN: $500 · OtherGLOBAL FEDERATION OF CHINESE BUSINE…CHURCH: $450 · OtherCHURCHJCCAA: $350 · OtherGLOBAL FEDERATION OF CHINESE BUSINESS WOMEN: $318 · Other+3 more: $700 · Other+3 moreTechnical Development Corporation: $3,000 · Community ImprovementTechnical Dev…CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $1,500 · Human ServicesCHINESE COMMU…Holy Child Charity Inc: $1,000 · Human ServicesHoly Child Ch…FORT BEND CARE CENTER: $500 · Human ServicesFORT BEND CAR…INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Public BenefitCentury Cancer Fund: $450 · PhilanthropySKY HIGH FOR KIDS INC: $375 · Health
Education$9,955Other$8,096Community Improvement$3,000Human Services$3,000Public Benefit$1,000Philanthropy$450Health$375

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE INC: $5,030 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $2,700 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL OF COLORADO: $2,225 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Leadership Forum Houston Gulf Coast Chapter: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCentury Cancer Fund: $450 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetSKY HIGH FOR KIDS INC: $375 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.

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.

Shell USA Company Fou…The Bank of America C…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Shell USA Company FoundationTX13.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Shell USA Company Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Ming Chen Burdett Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ming Chen Burdett Foundation. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s 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 · 0–5%
    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 21 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 Ming Chen Burdett’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