Skip to content
Terry & Kelly Crofoot Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Terry & Kelly Crofoot Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$6.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
14
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$5.9M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Philanthropy$5.9MHealth$494kReligion$220kHuman Services$164kEducation$143kArts & Culture$55kRecreation & Sports$51kScience & Tech$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k12 grants · $40k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $250k+1 grant · $5.9M
$4,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$880
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CROFOOT FAMILY FOUNDATION$5,931,066
FACES$25,000
TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION$9,500
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER (TTUHSC)$7,000
REFUGE SERVICES INC$6,250
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION$5,000
COVENANT HEALTH FOUNDATION$4,500
IDALOU EDUCATION FOUNDATION$3,750
MALTA FARMS$1,500
RANCHING HERITAGE ASSOCIATION$1,200
TEXAS BOYS RANCH$1,150
LUBBOCK CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY$200
LUBBOCK COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION$200
FAITH TRUST CENTER$200
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 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY: $3k → 10%NYU LANGONE HEALTH: $50k → 17%MISSION K9 RESCUE: $1k → 8%STABLE - SPIRIT: $3k → 14%SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $200k → 14%LUBBOCK CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $200 → 15%EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF WEST TEXAS: $7k → 16%IDALOU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $5k → 17%ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $1k → 21%MATADOR CLUB: $500 → 8%KSU GOLF: $50k → 20%FRIENDS OF FACES: $50k → 6%FACES GALA: $50k → 17%SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $50k → 14%EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF WEST TEXAS: $5k → 16%IDALOU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $4k → 17%KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $55k → 20%SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF WEST TEXAS: $5k → 16%LUBBOCK COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION: $200 → 17%KSU AHEARN FUND: $45k → 20%EPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF WEST TEXAS: $2k → 16%YWCA OF LUBBOCK: $3k → 17%KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $5k → 20%GREAT EPILEPSY STEAKOUT: $2k → 16%MALTA FARMS: $2k → 17%BATTLESHIP TEXAS FOUNDATION: $1k → 16%MALTA FARMS: $2k → 17%FACES: $50k → 16%MALTA FARMS: $500 → 17%SCIENCE SPECTRUM: $10k → 17%THE COVENANT FOUNDATION: $101k → 17%THE COVENANT FOUNDATION: $70k → 17%COVENANT HEALTH FOUNDATION: $16k → 17%COVENANT FOUNDATION: $12k → 17%COVENANT HEALTH FOUNDATION: $11k → 17%COVENANT FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%COVENANT HEALTH FOUNDATION: $5k → 17%COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WEST TEXAS: $1k → 17%JOE ELY - COVENANT HEALTH FOUNDATION: $2k → 17%FAITH TRUST CENTER: $200 → 17%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.

14%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$997k · 15 repeat orgs$6.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against -16% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
17

Total granted

$997k
$234k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
-16%

Still filing today

67%
41%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 1% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5.9M 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
EducationHealthPhilanthropyHuman ServicesArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • SM
    SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2022 · $270k · revenue +505%
  • CF
    COVENANT FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2017–2021 · $192k · revenue +45% · 73% of their budget
  • KS
    KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    3× · 2021–2024 · $75k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • NL
    NYU LANGONE HEALTH
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF FACES
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -66%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $50k
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 a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
2
Texas Prairieland Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Texas Trust Gives
Philanthropy
4
North Central Texas Medical Foundation
Health
5
Greater Texas Foundation
Education
6
Texas Veterinary Medical Foundation

The texas veterinary medical foundation is committed to supporting the veterinary profession and our communities in texas by providing resources, education, and programs for the responsible stewardship of animals.

Animals
7
Texas State Rifle Association Foundation Inc
—
8
Texas Bankers Foundation
Education
9
Lubbock Christian University Foundation

Raising funds to support the activities of lubbock christian university and to fund capital projects for instructional facilities for lubbock christian university.

Education
10
Texas a&M University-Central Tx Foundati

Operated exclusively for educational purposes specifically including to further educational activities at texas a& m university-central texas within the meaning of 501(c)(3).

Education
11
Lone Star Foundation
—
12
The Good Foundation of Texas
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Tech Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Crofoot Family 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

21 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. 21 of the 37 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
8/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CROFOOT FAMILY FOUNDATION: $5,931,066 · PhilanthropyCROFOOT FAMILY FOUNDATION+2 more: $193,410 · PhilanthropySOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $270,000 · EducationKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $75,000 · EducationTEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC: $56,425 · Education+2 more: $8,950 · EducationFACES: $75,000 · OtherNYU LANGONE HEALTH: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherKSU AHEARN FUND: $47,500 · OtherEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF WEST TEXAS: $18,500 · OtherTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER (TTUHSC): $13,500 · Other+13 more: $33,950 · OtherREFUGE SERVICES INC: $161,250 · Human ServicesTEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH: $27,000 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF FACES: $50,000 · HealthCOVENANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $31,550 · HealthStable-Spirit: $3,000 · Health+1 more: $2,500 · HealthSCIENCE SPECTRUM INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureBATTLESHIP TEXAS FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Arts & CultureMALTA FARMS INC: $3,500 · Crime & Legal
Philanthropy$6,124,476Education$410,375Other$338,450Human Services$188,250Health$87,050Arts & Culture$11,000Crime & Legal$3,500

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 budgetCROFOOT FAMILY FOUNDATION: $5,931,066 over 1y, 96% of budgetSOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL FOUNDATION: $270,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetCOVENANT FOUNDATION INC: $192,410 over 4y, 73% of budgetREFUGE SERVICES INC: $161,250 over 6y, 2.6% of budgetKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC: $56,425 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF FACES: $50,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetCOVENANT HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $31,550 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetTEXAS GIRLS AND BOYS RANCH: $27,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSCIENCE SPECTRUM INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRanching Heritage Association: $9,450 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetIDALOU EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $8,750 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetMALTA FARMS INC: $3,500 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF LUBBOCK: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetStable-Spirit: $3,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBATTLESHIP TEXAS FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WEST TEXAS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMission K9 Rescue Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLUBBOCK CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLUBBOCK COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION: $200 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.

Crofoot Family Founda…Ch Foundation IncHelen Jones Foundatio…C and a McDonald Fami…South Plains Foundati…Community Foundation …Texas Instruments Fou…Mary L Livermore Foun…The Cash Family Found…Rc Johnson Jr Foundat…Diekemper Family Foun…HDS Foundation
Crofoot Family FoundationTX22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Crofoot Family Foundation · Ch Foundation Inc · Helen Jones Foundation Inc · C and a McDonald Family Foundation · South Plains Foundation · Community Foundation of West Texas · Texas Instruments Foundation · Mary L Livermore Foundation · The Cash Family Foundation · Rc Johnson Jr Foundation Inc · Diekemper Family Foundation Inc · HDS 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 Terry & Kelly Crofoot Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Terry & Kelly Crofoot Foundation. 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 Terry & Kelly Crofoot Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Terry & Kelly Crofoot 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 37 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Terry & Kelly Crofoot’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