Skip to content
Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas

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 states lands, waters, and wildlife.

$16M
Granted FY2024still arriving
23
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$1.3M
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 2024.

Animals$20MEnvironment$1.5MScience & Tech$421kEducation$190kArts & Culture$148kFood & Nutrition$50kRecreation & Sports$29kPublic Benefit$20kOther$0
02FY2024 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 23 grants below total $2,681,370, the rows itemized in this filing. The $15,624,502 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $12,943,132 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $190k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $570k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.9M
$46,800
Median grant
4
States reached
$91M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPT$1,284,650
TEXAS FOUND FOR CONSERVATION$339,500
CHASING THE TIDE$279,188
BORDERLANDS RESEARCH INST$180,000
WILDLIFE HABITAT FEDERATION$74,000
NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSN OF TEXA$58,090
FRIENDS OF PECOS RIVER$57,500
TEXAS a&m UNIV-COPRUS CHRISTI$50,000
HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE$50,000
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION$50,000
TEXAS LAND CONSERVANCY$50,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$46,800
COASTAL PRAIRIE CONSERVANCY$45,300
AUDUBON OUTDOOR CLUB OF CC$21,000
COASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUND$19,810
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 10% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%The Trust for Public Land: $140k → 16%NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSN OF TEXA: $58k → 10%Texas Coalition for Conservation: $35k → 10%FRIENDS OF PECOS RIVER: $58k → 13%Borderlands Research Institute: $315k → 14%WILDLIFE HABITAT FEDERATION: $74k → 15%BORDERLAND RESEARCH FOUND: $30k → 15%TX AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST: $50k → 16%COASTAL PRAIRIE CONSERVANCY: $45k → 16%TOWN OF FULTON TEXAS: $94k → 17%American Bird Conservancy: $150k → 6%FRIENDS OF PECOS RIVER: $40k → 13%BORDERLANDS RESEARCH INST: $180k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $75k → 16%HARTE RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $50k → 17%TOWN OF FULTON TEXAS: $36k → 17%ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION: $50k → 14%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $42k → 6%BORDERLANDS RESEARCH INST: $142k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $47k → 16%TEXAS a&m UNIV-COPRUS CHRISTI: $50k → 17%FLATSWORTHY INC: $33k → 17%ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES: $30k → 14%american bird conservancy: $28k → 6%TEXAS FOUND FOR CONSERVATION: $340k → 10%BORDERLANDS INSTITUTE - SUL ROSS UNIVERSITY: $138k → 14%ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES: $30k → 14%TEXAS FOUND FOR CONSERVATION: $321k → 10%BORDERLANDS RESEARCH INST: $60k → 14%FRIEDKIN CONSERVATION FUND: $100k → 16%TEXAS FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION: $183k → 10%SUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%Texas Foundation for Conservation: $154k → 10%BORDERLANDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $49k → 14%THE GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION: $42k → 16%TEXAS FOUNDATION OF CONSERVATION: $144k → 10%TEXAS FOUND FOR CONSERVATION: $140k → 10%TEXAS FOUNDATION FOR CONSERVATION: $138k → 10%CHASING THE TIDE: $279k → 10%Texas Parks & Wildlife Department: $4.2M → 10%Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: $3.5M → 10%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPA: $3.1M → 10%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPT: $2.2M → 10%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPT: $1.3M → 10%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT: $1.2M → 10%Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: $1.0M → 10%Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: $699k → 10%texas alliance for conservation: $40k → 10%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ID
MA
CA
NE
VA
AZ
DC
AL
TX
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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$21M · 17 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
25

Total granted

$21M
$609k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+26%

Still filing today

53%
76%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $619k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentAnimalsEducationArts & CultureFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • TF
    Texas Foundation for Conservation
    7× · 2017–2024 · $1.4M · revenue +380% · 77% of their budget
  • AB
    American Bird Conservancy
    4× · 2017–2022 · $240k · revenue +54%
  • FO
    Friends of the Pecos River
    2× · 2023–2024 · $98k · revenue +131% · 59% of their budget

Funded once

  • THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $140k · revenue +109%
  • FC
    Friedkin Conservation Fund
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -451% · 99% of their budget
  • TA
    Texas Agricultural Land Trust Foundation
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -51%
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
Texas Prairieland Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Big Thicket Biosphere Reserve

The Big Thicket Biosphere Reserve's mission is community-based conservation to reconnect people with the natural and cultural environment while promoting sustainable economic growth in Southeast Texas.

Environment
3
Big Thicket Natural Heritage Trust

We acquire properties to be donated to the National Park Service and state entities and advocate for protection of Big Thicket natural resources.

Environment
4
Farwide Conservation Inc

Farwide Conservation Inc. is dedicated to the conservation of fish and wildlife habitat and the promotion of outdoor recreational opportunities today and forever.

Environment
5
Wilderness Conservation Foundation
Environment
6
The Houston Audubon Society

To advance the conservation of birds and their habitats in the Greater Houston Gulf Coast region by acquiring and maintaining critical habitat as bird sanctuaries, providing education programs and nature experiences, and advocating policy…

Environment
7
Permian Quail Coalition Inc

The organizations mission is to help preserve, maintain and restore upland game habitat throughout the southwest region of the United States and to improve the quail population in Texas.

Animals
8
Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas

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…

Environment
9
Hill Country Alliance

The mission of the Hill Country Alliance is to bring together a diverse coalition of partners to preserve the open spaces, starry night skies, clean and abundant waters, and unique character of the Texas Hill Country.

Environment
10
Texas Agricultural Land Trust

To conserve the Texas heritage of agricultural lands, natural resources, and wildlife habitats.

Environment
11
Texas Coastal Exchange

Texas Coastal Exchange promotes the protection and restoration of coastal habitats.

Environment
12
Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge

The mission of the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge shall be to educate the public regarding the flora, fauna, and natural environment of the Refuge, through functions and educational events, promote public support for…

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wildlife Association of Texas; the most unlike its peers is Harte Research Institute Foundation. 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

38 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. 38 of the 56 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
37/38
Grantees still filing
24/38
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department: $17,216,582 · OtherTexas Parks & Wildlife DepartmentBorderlands Research Institute: $933,481 · Other+26 more: $1,211,203 · Other+26 moreTexas Foundation for Conservation: $1,419,010 · AnimalsTexas Fou…American Bird Conservancy: $240,370 · AnimalsAmerican …Friedkin Conservation Fund: $100,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE HABITAT FEDERATION: $74,000 · Animals+5 more: $101,782 · AnimalsTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $140,000 · EnvironmentFriends of the Pecos River: $97,500 · EnvironmentTexas Land Conservancy: $62,500 · EnvironmentCoastal Prairie Conservancy: $55,300 · EnvironmentThe Society for Ecological Restoration Inc: $50,000 · EnvironmentGalveston Bay Foundation Inc: $42,000 · EnvironmentFLATSWORTHY INC: $32,775 · EnvironmentTHE ARTIST BOAT INC: $26,000 · EnvironmentArmand Bayou Nature Center Inc: $25,000 · Environment+5 more: $51,929 · EnvironmentTexas Agricultural Land Trust Foundation: $50,000 · Food & NutritionSouth Texas Charity Weekend Inc: $25,000 · PhilanthropyCOASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $19,810 · PhilanthropyAUBURN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $15,000 · EducationTexas Business Hall of Fame Foundation: $10,000 · Community Improvement
Other$19,361,266Animals$1,935,162Environment$583,004Food & Nutrition$50,000Philanthropy$44,810Education$15,000Community Improvement$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTexas Foundation for Conservation: $1,419,010 over 7y, 77% of budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $240,370 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetTHE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND: $140,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $131,800 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFriedkin Conservation Fund: $100,000 over 1y, 99% of budgetFriends of the Pecos River: $97,500 over 2y, 59% of budgetHUSTON-TILLOTSON UNIVERSITY: $74,800 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetWILDLIFE HABITAT FEDERATION: $74,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetTexas Land Conservancy: $62,500 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES: $60,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetTHE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $58,090 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCoastal Prairie Conservancy: $55,300 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTexas Agricultural Land Trust Foundation: $50,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetThe Society for Ecological Restoration Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetGalveston Bay Foundation Inc: $42,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetWILDLIFE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $40,282 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetFLATSWORTHY INC: $32,775 over 1y, 65% of budgetBORDERLANDS RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetTHE ARTIST BOAT INC: $26,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetSouth Texas Charity Weekend Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetArmand Bayou Nature Center Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetCOASTAL BEND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $19,810 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAUBURN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetQUAIL FEDERATION INC DBA GREATER HOUSTON QUAIL COALITION INC: $14,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetEcology Action of Texas Inc: $11,000 over 1y, 8.8% of budgetBAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTH TEXAS BOTANICAL GARDENS: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTexas Business Hall of Fame Foundation: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetEXPLORATION GREEN CONSERVANCY: $10,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetCREATIVE VISIONS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE PEREGRINE FUND INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOASTAL BEND BAYS & ESTUARIES PROGRAM INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc: $5,929 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPHEASANTS FOREVER INC: $5,500 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.

National Fish and Wil…Greater Houston Commu…Jacob and Terese Hers…Centerpoint Energy Fo…The Brown Foundation …The Knobloch Family F…Meadows Foundation IncThe Cynthia & George …Austin Community Foun…The Nature ConservancyShell USA Company Fou…Texas Instruments Fou…
National Fish and Wildlife FoundationDC21.6× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Greater Houston Community Foundation · Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation · Centerpoint Energy Foundation Inc · The Brown Foundation Inc · The Knobloch Family Foundation · Meadows Foundation Inc · The Cynthia & George Mitchell Foundation · Austin Community Foundation Inc · The Nature Conservancy · Shell USA Company Foundation · Texas Instruments 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 Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 56 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas’ 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