· Private foundation
Tactical Electronics for Community Engagement Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 47% of TACTICAL ELECTRONICS FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k14 grants · $34k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE DEMAND PROJECT | $20,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $6,000 |
| HEROES HEALING HOMESTEAD | $5,000 |
| HEROES HOPE | $5,000 |
| TULSA FIREFIGHTERS BENEVOLENT FUND | $5,000 |
| EAGLE OPS FOUNDATION | $3,600 |
| SOLDIER'S WISH | $2,700 |
| ALBUQUERQUE MOUNTAIN RESCUE COUNCIL | $2,500 |
| SPECIAL OLYMPICS | $1,000 |
| EAGLE OPS FOUNDATION | $1,000 |
| BROKEN ARROW POLICE DEPARTMENT | $951 |
| LAW ENFORCEMENT UNITED | $500 |
| BLUE STAR MOTHERS IN KIND | $100 |
| BROKEN ARROW NEIGHBORS | $93 |
| BLUE STAR MOTHERS IN KIND | $80 |
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 (FY23–24, $613) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% 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.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 18% of Tactical Electronics for Community Engagement Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +24% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
8 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 6 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, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k 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
- TDTHE DEMAND PROJECT INC2× · 2023–2024 · $30k · revenue +24%
- SWSoldier's Wish3× · 2022–2024 · $18k · revenue +86%
- TFTULSA FIREFIGHTERS BENEVOLENCE FUND2× · 2023–2024 · $10k · revenue +14%
Funded once
- TETACTICAL ELECTRONICS FOR COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $26k
- TSThe Scripps Howard Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $6k · revenue +79%
- HFHABITAT FOR HUMANITYone grant, 2022 · $4k
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.
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa provides essential services that remove barriers, strengthen families, and promote healing when children need healthcare.
Serving the needs of the whole child, including education, safety, environment, health, and well-being.
To provide financial support and programs for fallen officer families. To raise awareness and advocate for national issues impacting officers.
The mission of the Oklahoma State Troopers Foundation "OSTF" is to assist in fulfilling needs of Oklahoma Highway Patrol Troopers and their families as well as the organization by providing grants and/or funds for:Financial SupportFamily &…
To foster enhanced cooperation between Israel and the State of Oklahoma.
Organizations Mission: HALO Project believes there is hope for every child and family to experience healing through connection. Every day we equip families and community partners with proven methods to work toward individual healing and…
To impact the lives of families in the state of Oklahoma provide educational opportunities for our youth and support the responders of our great state.
Education and issue advocacy related to helping Oklahomans understand their Constitutional right to decide issues for themselves at the ballot box.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Operation Gratitude Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Scripps Howard Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 25 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 THE DEMAND PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds Soldier's Wish ↗
- Who funds TULSA FIREFIGHTERS BENEVOLENCE FUND ↗
- Who funds The Scripps Howard Foundation ↗
- Who funds EAGLE OPS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Heroes Hope Inc ↗
- Who funds OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS BURN CAMP INC ↗
- Who funds BROKEN ARROW NEIGHBORS INC ↗
- Who funds TULSA ADVOCATES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds OPERATION GRATITUDE INC ↗
- Who funds Child Abuse Network Inc dba Child Advocacy Network ↗
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: Tulsa Community Foundation · The Anne and Henry Zarrow Foundation · Hern Family Foundation · Grace & Franklin Bernsen Foundation · One Gas Foundation Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Tactical Electronics for Community Engagement 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.