· Private foundation
The 1687 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 $10k35 grants · $138k
- $10k–50k57 grants · $1.1M
- $50k–250k22 grants · $2.0M
- $250k+3 grants · $1.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION - AGREEMENT 2024 | $580,000 |
| TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION - AGREEMENT GRANT | $500,000 |
| TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC - GRANT | $350,000 |
| HEARTBEAT INTERNATIONAL - GRANT | $240,000 |
| LIFELINE CHILDREN'S SERVICES - GRANT | $180,563 |
| CAMP ABLE OF BUFFALO GAP - ABILENE GIVES FUNDRAISER | $150,495 |
| OPEN DOOR - 2024 MOBILE UNIT EXPENSES | $123,063 |
| ELAM MINISTRIES - GRANT | $120,000 |
| TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC - THE 1687 FOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIP | $100,000 |
| MERCY GATE MINISTRIES-MINDY - GRANT | $100,000 |
| TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION - GRANT | $100,000 |
| OLDEN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMEN - GRANT | $100,000 |
| BILLY GRAHAM EVANGELISTIC ASSO - DONATION- SAMARITANS PURSE | $100,000 |
| CENTER FOR ASD - MATCHING GRANT | $75,000 |
| WMK LLC - VAN DONATION FOR HEATHER | $69,380 |
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 (FY17–24, $621k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 98% 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 +70% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
67 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 63 since wound down; 112 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, 3% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.6M 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
- ECEASTLAND COUNTY OPEN DOOR5× · 2018–2022 · $571k · revenue +35% · 28% of their budget
- LCLIFELINE CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC5× · 2018–2022 · $521k · revenue +154%
- CPCHASE'S PLACE INC5× · 2017–2022 · $315k · revenue +79%
Funded once
- MAMILITARY AND GENERAL PUBLICone grant, 2017 · $2.0M
- TTTEXAS TECH FOUNDATION-VEGETATION MONITORING & MGMTone grant, 2022 · $370k
- SESPECIAL EVENTS FOR VETERANS CHARITIES AND DISABLEDone grant, 2017 · $276k
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.
To strengthen families through parenting classes educational programs, youth programs and referral services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect.
Sharing jesus, healing hearts, transforming lives.
The Family Guidance & Outreach Center of Lubbock is dedicated to the prevention of child abuse and neglect and supporting, mentoring, and educating parents.
Pregnancy Resources' mission is to inspire hope and unconditionally love everyone we serve by empowering them to thrive through compassionate support and positive solutions.
To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.
Provides housing and spiritual development for Christians reintegrating into society upon exiting the criminal justice system.
Christian coaching, counseling, assessment and consulting services to the communities of Tarrant County, Texas.
The Organizations mission is to bring unity and efficiency to investigations of child abuse through the use of a multi-disciplinary team and, thereby, to provide the best possible services to victims of child abuse and their families.
RAISE Texas advances equitable policies and programs that foster financial security and economic mobility for low- and moderate-income Texans. We equip, innovate and advocate to reduce disparities, remove barriers and build opportunities…
To procure and distribute nutritional food to qualified agencies that feed the hungry of West Central Texas.
To lead a unified effort for a hunger-free texas.
TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of North Texas and the most unlike its peers is Convenience Distributors Ok. 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 26 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) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
67 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. 67 of the 275 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 EASTLAND COUNTY OPEN DOOR ↗
- Who funds LIFELINE CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds CHASE'S PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds BYNUM SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds ENCOURAGE ONE ANOTHER ↗
- Who funds HEARTBEAT INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds HOSPICE OF MIDLAND INC ↗
- Who funds Parents Defeating Autism Today ↗
- Who funds Elam Ministries ↗
- Who funds MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF NORTH TEXAS ↗
- Who funds NARROW GATE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Remember the Alamo Foundation ↗
- Who funds Charis Hills Inc ↗
- Who funds TEXAS RANGERS BASEBALL FOUNDATION ↗
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: Abell-Hanger Foundation · Beal Foundation · Permian Basin Area Foundation · Helen Greathouse Charitable Trust · Pevehouse Family Foundation · Scharbauer Foundation Inc · The Henry Foundation · Warren Charitable Foundation · Yarborough Foundation · James a Buddy Davidson Charitable Foundation · Wayne & Jo Ann Moore Charitable Foundation · United Way of Midland Inc
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 The 1687 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 The 1687 Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The 1687 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.