Skip to content
Reese Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Reese Foundation

Its FY2018 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$145k
Granted FY2018
11
Grants FY2018
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2018.

Environment$118kEducation$74kRecreation & Sports$30kYouth Development$25kArts & Culture$18kAnimals$15kFood & Nutrition$10kPhilanthropy$450
02FY2018 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k4 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $70k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL$50,000
THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION$15,000
SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY$15,000
AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION$10,000
COLORADO RIVER ALLIANCE$10,000
AUSTIN TRAIL FOUNDATION$10,000
ECORISE YOUTH INNOVATIONS$10,000
TRINITY EDWARDS SPRINGS PROTECTION ASSOCIATION$7,500
Individual grant recipient$7,500
TODOS JUNTOS LEARNING CENTER$5,000
AUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE$5,000
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 (FY17–18) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WESTCAVE PRESERVE: $20k → 8%WIMBERLEY VALLEY WATERSHED ASSOCIATION: $20k → 10%ECORISE YOUTH INNOVATIONS: $10k → 10%PHILANTHROPY SOUTHWEST: $450 → 14%UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL: $50k → 10%UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL: $19k → 10%GIRLSTART: $15k → 10%AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%SHOAL CREEK CONSERVANCY: $15k → 10%THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $15k → 10%AUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE: $5k → 10%AUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE: $5k → 10%COLORADO RIVER ALLIANCE: $15k → 10%COLORADO RIVER ALLIANCE: $10k → 10%URBAN ROOTS: $10k → 10%CREATIVE ACTION AUSTIN: $8k → 10%TODOS JUNTOS LEARNING CENTER: $5k → 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.
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.

47%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$132k · 4 repeat orgs$148k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +155% since the first grant, against +106% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
7

Total granted

$132k
$85k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+155%
+106%

Still filing today

75%
86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $63k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
EnvironmentEducationRecreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentArts & CulturePhilanthropyOther
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

  • TE
    Trinity Edwards Springs Protection Assoc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $28k · revenue +638%
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE COLORADO RIVER FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $25k · revenue +51%
  • AT
    AUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE
    2× · 2017–2018 · $10k · revenue +155%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $20k
  • WV
    Wimberley Valley Watershed Associationgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +584%
  • GIRLSTART
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +1%
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 Clean Energy Coalition
—
2
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
3
Good Work Austin

Good Work Austin's mission is to foster healthy careers in the local food and beverage industry through professional development and advocacy for more equitable practices.

Public Benefit
4
Austin Youth River Watch

Austin youth river watch transforms and inspires youth through environmental education, community engagement, and adventure.

Environment
5
Texas Water Foundation

Texas water foundation is a statewide nonprofit that provides educational resources and educational services on water in texas for decision makers, water professionals, and everyday texans. texas water foundation works in the areas of…

Environment
6
Imagine Austin Coalition Evolve Austin Advocates

Evolve Austin advocates for and champions the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan, crafted by the people of Austin to create a more affordable, mobile, and sustainable city.

—
7
Ecology Action of Texas Inc

Ecology Action's mission is to protect, reclaim, and connect communities to neglected or damaged remnants of the urban wilderness. We work to accelerate ecosystem recovery through biodiversity enhancement, water quality improvements,…

Environment
8
Greenspace Dallas

Improving public and park land communities using educational and vocational training for underserved youth.

Environment
9
Tex-E Inc
Education
10
American Society of Landscape Architects Texas Chapter

Advancement of education and skill in the art of Landscape Architecture and the promotion of the profession of Landscape Architecture as an instrument of service in the public welfare.

—
11
Save Our Springs Alliance Inc

Our mission is to educate and advocate on behalf of the Edwards Aquifer and the natural heritage of the Hill Country region and its watersheds with special emphasis on Barton Springs.

Environment
12
Farm and City

Farm&City is an independent 501c3 think & do tank dedicated to high quality urban & rural human habitat in Texas in perpetuity. We improve public policies to improve millions of Texans lives in ways that preserve and enhance Texas land,…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Friends of the Colorado River Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Todos Juntos Learning Center. 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

15 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. 15 of the 18 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
14/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University High School Inc: $69,000 · OtherUniversity High School IncIndividual grant recipient: $20,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientAUSTIN TRAIL FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherAUSTIN TRAIL FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $7,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTrinity Edwards Springs Protection Assoc: $27,500 · EnvironmentTrinity Edwards Springs Protection…FRIENDS OF THE COLORADO RIVER FOUNDATION: $25,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF THE COLORADO RIVER FOUN…Shoal Creek Conservancy: $15,000 · EnvironmentShoal Creek ConservancyEcoRise Youth Innovations: $10,000 · EnvironmentEcoRise Youth InnovationsTexas Land Conservancy: $10,000 · EnvironmentTexas Land ConservancyGIRLSTART: $15,000 · Recreation & SportsGIRLSTARTAUSTIN YMBL SUNSHINE CAMP: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsAUSTIN YMBL S…AUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Recreation & SportsAUSTIN PARKS …Wimberley Valley Watershed Association: $20,000 · EducationWimberley…Todos Juntos Learning Center: $5,000 · EducationTodos Jun…NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $15,000 · AnimalsAUSTIN YOUTH & COMMUNITY FARM INC DBA URBAN ROOTS: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentAUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE: $10,000 · Arts & CulturePHILANTHROPY SOUTHWEST: $450 · Philanthropy
Other$106,500Environment$87,500Recreation & Sports$35,000Education$25,000Animals$15,000Youth Development$10,000Arts & Culture$10,000Philanthropy$450

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 budgetUniversity High School Inc: $69,000 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetTrinity Edwards Springs Protection Assoc: $27,500 over 2y, 21% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE COLORADO RIVER FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetWimberley Valley Watershed Association: $20,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetGIRLSTART: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetShoal Creek Conservancy: $15,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAUSTIN YMBL SUNSHINE CAMP: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetAUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetEcoRise Youth Innovations: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTexas Land Conservancy: $10,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetAUSTIN THEATRE ALLIANCE: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTodos Juntos Learning Center: $5,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetPHILANTHROPY SOUTHWEST: $450 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.

Austin Community Foun…Shield-Ayres Foundati…The Powell FoundationThe Cynthia & George …Better Business BureauGreater Houston Commu…The Applied Materials…Communities Foundatio…Buena Vista FoundationHarry E and Eda L Mon…Reissa FoundationJacob and Terese Hers…
Austin Community Foundation IncTX25.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Austin Community Foundation Inc · Shield-Ayres Foundation · The Powell Foundation · The Cynthia & George Mitchell Foundation · Better Business Bureau · Greater Houston Community Foundation · The Applied Materials Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Buena Vista Foundation · Harry E and Eda L Montandon Charitable Tr · Reissa Foundation · Jacob and Terese Hershey 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 Reese Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Reese Foundation. 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
    7report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Reese Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Reese Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 18 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Reese’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