Skip to content

· Private foundation

Nell V Bailey Charitable Trust Xxxxx2001

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$499k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$499k
Largest

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

3
’18
1
’19
2
’20
2
’21
2
’22
3
’23
0
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Philanthropy$499kHuman Services$43kYouth Development$41kHousing & Shelter$30kEducation$11kArts & Culture$4k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$499,394
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NORTH TEXAS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$499,394
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%HOPE FARM INC: $7k → 11%HOPE FARM INC: $7k → 11%HOPE FARM INC: $6k → 11%HOPE FARM INC: $5k → 11%LENA POPE HOME: $5k → 11%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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$98k · 4 repeat orgs$30k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
4

Total granted

$98k
$24k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
0%

Still filing today

75%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23
Human ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementArts & 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

  • HF
    HOPE FARM INC
    4× · 2020–2023 · $26k · revenue +104%
  • DR
    DAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR HOMELESS
    2× · 2018–2019 · $24k · revenue +41%
  • TS
    THE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE
    2× · 2020–2023 · $11k · revenue +45%

Funded once

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ARLINGTON INC
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
  • LP
    LENA POPE HOME INC
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -5%
  • KW
    KIDS WHO CARE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -35%
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
Tip of Texas Family Outreach Inc

To strengthen families through parenting classes educational programs, youth programs and referral services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect.

—
2
Safe City Commission

Support law enforcement and promote public safety awareness and crime prevention in Fort Worth.

Crime & Legal
3
Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center

To engage and educate communities to prevent sexual violence and to support survivors and their loved ones as they heal and thrive.

Human Services
4
Texas Girls and Boys Ranch

Sharing jesus, healing hearts, transforming lives.

Human Services
5
Texas Community Counseling

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,…

Human Services
6
Texans Care for Children Inc

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…

Crime & Legal
7
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
8
The Retreat Home for Children

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.

Crime & Legal
9
Childrens Advocacy Center of West Texas Inc

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.

Crime & Legal
10
Northeast Texas Child Advocacy Center Inc

To bring hope and healing while working together to break the cycle of child abuse.

Human Services
11
Fort Worth Teen Challenge Inc

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

—
12
Children's Alliance of South Texas

To provide a neutral, child friendly organization that facilitates a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation, intervention and treatment of child abuse.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hope Farm Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 10 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTH TEXAS (TAX: $499,394 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTH TEXAS (TAXDAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE: $38,000 · OtherDAY RESOUR…BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ARLINGTON INC: $10,000 · OtherBOYS & GIR…Union Gospel Mission of Tarrant County: $6,000 · OtherUnion Gosp…KIDS WHO CARE INC: $5,000 · OtherKIDS WHO C…HOPE FARM INC: $25,509 · Human ServicesLENA POPE HOME INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesDAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR HOMELESS: $23,726 · Community ImprovementTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $10,721 · EducationArtist Outreach Inc: $4,000 · Arts & Culture
Philanthropy$499,394Other$59,000Human Services$30,509Community Improvement$23,726Education$10,721Arts & Culture$4,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTH TEXAS (TAX: $499,394 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetHOPE FARM INC: $25,509 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetDAY RESOURCE CENTER FOR HOMELESS: $23,726 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $10,721 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ARLINGTON INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetUnion Gospel Mission of Tarrant County: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLENA POPE HOME INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKIDS WHO CARE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetArtist Outreach Inc: $4,000 over 1y, 1.4% 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.

Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation IncTX19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Nell V Bailey Charitable Trust Xxxxx2001 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nell V Bailey Charitable Trust Xxxxx2001. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–25%
    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 10 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Nell V Bailey Charitable Trust Xxxxx2001’s filings →

    More from the funding graph