· Private foundation
Rushing Family Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k22 grants · $67k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $101k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $151k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UMC FAMILY FOUNDATION | $101,000 |
| THE MATADOR CLUB | $50,000 |
| ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL SCHOOL | $31,200 |
| TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| RED RAIDER FACILITIES FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| HOMESTAKE PEAK SCHOOL PTA | $20,000 |
| JUNIOR LEAGUE OF LUBBOCK | $8,000 |
| NEW WORLD SPORTS CLUB | $5,000 |
| PECOS CANYON FIRE & RESCUE | $5,000 |
| UPPER PECOS WATERSHED ASS | $5,000 |
| MARCH OF DIMES | $5,000 |
| LUBBOCK IMPACT | $5,000 |
| RONALD MCDONALD CHARITIES OF SOUTH | $4,000 |
| AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY | $3,500 |
| STUDENT MOBILIZATION | $3,000 |
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 (FY18–24, $16k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 94% 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +43% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.
34 repeat relationships — 17 still active in FY2024, 17 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
- TTTEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC4× · 2021–2024 · $205k · revenue +68%
- JLJUNIOR LEAGUE OF LUBBOCK INC6× · 2019–2024 · $46k · revenue +4%
- CFCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF LINCOLN COUNTY3× · 2022–2024 · $15k · revenue +835%
Funded once
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUB LUBBOCKone grant, 2017 · $50k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2017 · $20k
- LPLUBBOCK POLICE FOUNDATIONone grant, 2020 · $10k
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.
Raising funds to support the activities of lubbock christian university and to fund capital projects for instructional facilities for lubbock christian university.
The foundation was established to provide a permanent endowment fund or funds for the purpose of encouraging members of the public to make gifts to the junior league of lubbock, inc. and for providing a more secure and permanent means of…
Organized for the purpose of providing monetary support to community organizations and individuals in need.
The ywca of lubbock legacy fund inc. is dedicated to meeting the needs of the ywca of lubbock in supporting the community through its mission of eliminating racism, empowering women, and promoting peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for…
The lubbock chamber of commerce provides promotion of business and community growth and development as well as preserving the competitive business enterprise system in the lubbock and surrounding area.
Provide quality primary and preventataive health care services to those in need.
To support and further the mission of texas state university through the acceptance and investment of gifts established as endowments benefiting the students, faculty and staff.
The family legal services of the south plains works to provide low income clients of the south plains with first-rate legal assistance, advocacy, and quality counsel in matters of family and elder law at free and/or reduced cost.
Giving people hope. working to address the root issues of the significant challenges facing our south plains communities to create lasting, positive change.
To financially contribute to the lubbock library system and promoting its many programs.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Tech Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Texas South Plains Honor Flight. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 43 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 14% of your grantees by number, and just 30% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
23 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. 23 of the 81 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 TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RED RAIDER FACILITIES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds JUNIOR LEAGUE OF LUBBOCK INC ↗
- Who funds MARCH OF DIMES INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF LINCOLN COUNTY ↗
- Who funds LUBBOCK IMPACT INC ↗
- Who funds RUIDOSO RACING FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LUBBOCK CHILDRENS HEALTH CLINIC ↗
- Who funds LUBBOCK POLICE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WOMEN'S PROTECTIVE SERVICES ↗
- Who funds LUBBOCK WOMEN'S CLUB ↗
- Who funds LL DAVIS SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTH PLAINS FOOD BANK 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: Ch Foundation Inc · Diekemper Family Foundation Inc · HDS Foundation · Community Foundation of West Texas · Kuykendall Foundation · Mary L Livermore Foundation · South Plains Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · International Assoc of Lions Clubs · Lubbock South Plains Lions Club · Caprock Foundation Inc · Armstrong Family 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 Rushing Family Foundation 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Rushing Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Rushing Family 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.