· Private foundation
Nell V Bailey Charitable Trust Xxxxx2001
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
Read this first · the figures below need context
100% of Nell V Bailey Charitable Trust Xxxxx2001’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Community Foundation Of North Texas Inc, not to grantees.
Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.
Organizations named directly on the return
Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NORTH TEXAS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $499,394 |
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 (FY20–23, $31k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% 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.
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 +45% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (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 FY2023, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k 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
- HFHOPE FARM INC4× · 2020–2023 · $26k · revenue +104%
- DRDAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR HOMELESS2× · 2018–2019 · $24k · revenue +41%
- TSTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE2× · 2020–2023 · $11k · revenue +45%
Funded once
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ARLINGTON INCone grant, 2018 · $10k
- LPLENA POPE HOME INCone grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -5%
- KWKIDS WHO CARE INCone grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -35%
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.
To strengthen families through parenting classes educational programs, youth programs and referral services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect.
Support law enforcement and promote public safety awareness and crime prevention in Fort Worth.
To engage and educate communities to prevent sexual violence and to support survivors and their loved ones as they heal and thrive.
Sharing jesus, healing hearts, transforming lives.
When care is within reach, lives change. Texas Community Counseling is a faith-based nonprofit committed to bringing hope and healing through mental health care to the communities that need it the most. We empower individuals to heal,…
Texans Care for Children shapes public policies and brings Texans together to make children a statewide priority. We work so kids can have what they need to be healthy, secure, and thriving and so every Texan can have the best start to…
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.
Our mission is to show the love of christ to each and every child and family towhom we serve and beyond. we do this by creating a culture where the needs of children,families, and staff are seen and met in creative and innovative ways.
The Organizations mission is to bring unity and efficiency to investigations of child abuse through the use of a multi-disciplinary team and, thereby, to provide the best possible services to victims of child abuse and their families.
To bring hope and healing while working together to break the cycle of child abuse.
Provide rehabilitation services and guidance to follow Christian principles to restore teens and young adults sufferning from addictions and trauma and ultimately placing them back into society as positive contributors
To provide a neutral, child friendly organization that facilitates a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation, intervention and treatment of child abuse.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hope Farm Inc and the most unlike its peers is Lena Pope Home Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 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. 9 of the 10 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 HOPE FARM INC ↗
- Who funds DAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR HOMELESS ↗
- Who funds THE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ARLINGTON INC ↗
- Who funds Union Gospel Mission of Tarrant County ↗
- Who funds LENA POPE HOME INC ↗
- Who funds KIDS WHO CARE INC ↗
- Who funds Artist Outreach 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: Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation Inc · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Martha Sue Parr Trust Xxxxx6005 · Amon G Carter Foundation · Sid W Richardson Foundation · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Robert D and Catherine R Alexander Foundation · Robert D and Alma Moreton Foundation · The Roach Foundation Inc · The Rees-Jones Foundation · United Way of Tarrant County · Jpmorgan Chase 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 Nell V Bailey Charitable Trust Xxxxx2001 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.