Skip to content

· Public charity

Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust

To provide funding for the purchase,installation, and maintenance of information technology in the common and careertech schools of the state of oklahoma; and to provides professional development to the schools to assist them with integrating the technology into their classrooms.

$1.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
23
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$545k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$13MReligion$40k
02FY2025 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k21 grants · $840k
  • $250k+2 grants · $920k
$40,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$49M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA$545,275
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA$375,000
NICOMA PARK ELEMENTARY$40,000
VALLIANT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL$40,000
BLACKWELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS$40,000
REED ELEMENTARY$40,000
HUGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS$40,000
DALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS$40,000
CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL$40,000
EMERSON SOUTH MID HIGH SCHOOL$40,000
PROUD TO PARTNER LEADERSHIP ACADEMY$40,000
FORT GIBSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS$40,000
MORRISON HIGH SCHOOL$40,000
BLAIR PUBLIC SCHOOLS$40,000
PERKINS-TRYON PUBLIC SCHOOLS$40,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 41% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 15%UNION CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $40k → 9%WAGONER HIGH SCHOOL: $40k → 9%NEWCASTLE MIDDLE SCHOOL: $40k → 10%DOVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $40k → 12%MORRISON HIGH SCHOOL: $40k → 12%LAVERNE HIGH SCHOOL: $40k → 12%GUYMON PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $40k → 13%TRUMAN ELEMENTARY NORMAN: $40k → 13%THACKERVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: $40k → 14%EDMOND PUBLIC SCHOOL-NORTHERN HILLS: $40k → 14%DEWEY MIDDLE SCHOOL: $40k → 14%OSAGE HILLS SCHOOL: $40k → 14%ADA EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER: $40k → 14%OLIVE ELEMENTARY: $40k → 15%ALEX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: $40k → 15%CARNEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $40k → 15%GLENPOOL ELEMENTARY: $40k → 15%WILSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $40k → 16%EMERSON MIDDLE SCHOOL: $40k → 16%CLINTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $40k → 16%INDIAHOMA HIGH SCHOOL: $40k → 16%BLACKWELL MIDDLE SCHOOL: $40k → 16%WESTERN OAKS ELEMENTARY PC: $40k → 16%SWEETWATER HIGH SCHOOL: $40k → 16%COLBERT PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $40k → 16%WHITEBEAD SCHOOL DISTRICT: $40k → 17%OKEENE JRSR HIGH SCHOOL: $40k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $803k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $545k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $538k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $535k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $535k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $535k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $375k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $268k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $268k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $268k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $268k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $268k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $225k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $150k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $150k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $90k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $75k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $75k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $75k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $75k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $75k → 13%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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10M · 34 repeat orgs$3.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +153% since the first grant, against +101% for those funded once.

34 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 23 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

34
62

Total granted

$10M
$2.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+153%
+101%

Still filing today

6%
3%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $440k went to new ones.

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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $6.2M
  • MP
    MOORE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
    7× · 2017–2024 · $600k
  • NP
    NEWCASTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
    5× · 2017–2021 · $200k

Funded once

  • PC
    PUTNAM CITY SCHOOLS
    one grant, 2017 · $80k
  • AE
    ALEX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    one grant, 2019 · $40k
  • RH
    RYAN HIGH SCHOOL
    one grant, 2020 · $40k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 107 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)
5/5
Grantees still filing
5/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: $6,222,775 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMAMOORE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT: $600,000 · Other+100 more: $6,320,000 · Other+100 moreSANTA FE SOUTH SCHOOLS INC: $80,000 · EducationJOHN W REX CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INC: $80,000 · EducationLE MONDE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER SCHO: $40,000 · EducationWestern Village Academy Inc: $40,000 · EducationOKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 · Education
Other$13,142,775Education$280,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSANTA FE SOUTH SCHOOLS INC: $80,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetJOHN W REX CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INC: $80,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetLE MONDE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER SCHO: $40,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetWestern Village Academy Inc: $40,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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 SANTA FE SOUTH SCHOOLS INC ↗
  • Who funds JOHN W REX CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds LE MONDE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER SCHO ↗

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.

Feed the Children IncOK80.7× affinity51 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Feed the Children Inc · Communities Foundation of Oklahoma · Oklahoma City Community Foundation Inc · Love Family Affiliated Fund of Occf Inc · Oklahoma Public School Resource Center Eigo Inc · Justin J Watt Foundation Inc · For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) · Oklahoma Public School Resource Center · Rural Oklahoma Community Foundation Inc an Affiliated Fund of Occf Inc · Project Lead the Way Inc · Arvest Foundation · Round It Up America Inc

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 Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oklahoma Educational Technology Trust. 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
    4report 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 107 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 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 Oklahoma Educational Technology’s filings →

    More from the funding graph