Skip to content
The Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham Charitable Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$772k
Granted FY2025still arriving
29
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$80k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Health$790kHuman Services$632kEducation$580kEnvironment$421kPhilanthropy$320kFood & Nutrition$225kHousing & Shelter$190kAnimals$145kOther$0
02FY2025 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k23 grants · $442k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $330k
$20,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST$80,000
JEREMIAH PROGRAM$50,000
YOUTH AND FAMILY ALLIANCE$50,000
AUSTIN CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN$50,000
COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF TRAVIS COUNTY$50,000
AUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$40,000
CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK INC$35,000
SIMS FOUNDATION$30,000
AUSTIN PETS ALIVE$25,000
COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION$25,000
HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE$25,000
HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY$20,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$20,000
BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE$20,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $370k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 7% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CENTRAL TEXAS YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU: $15k → 14%THE MYOSITIS ASSOCIATION: $20k → 6%BRAVELOVE INC: $10k → 14%THE MYOSITIS ASSOCIATION: $10k → 6%AUSTIN GROUPS FOR THE ELDERLY: $20k → 10%YOUTH AND FAMILY ALLIANCE: $50k → 10%YOUTH AND FAMILY ALLIANCE: $50k → 10%YOUTH AND FAMILY ALLIANCE: $50k → 10%YOUTH AND FAMILY ALLIANCE: $20k → 10%SWAN SONGS MUSICAL LAST WISHES: $10k → 10%WOMENS STORYBOOK PROJECT OF TEXAS: $10k → 10%WOMENS STORYBOOK PROJECT OF TEXAS: $10k → 10%WOMENS STORYBOOK PROJECT OF TEXAS: $10k → 10%HELPING HAND HOME FOR CHILDREN: $10k → 10%WOMENS STORYBOOK PROJECT OF TEXAS: $5k → 10%DRIVE A SENIOR AUSTIN TEXAS: $20k → 10%FLATWATER FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%FAMILY ELDERCARE INC: $10k → 10%FAMILY ELDERCARE INC: $10k → 10%FAMILY ELDERCARE INC: $10k → 10%FAMILY ELDERCARE INC: $10k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
MA
PA
CA
MO
MD
KS
TX
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 9% of The Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham Charitable Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

The Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham Charitable Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.6M · 31 repeat orgs$705k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against -1% for those funded once.

31 repeat relationships: 22 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

31
24

Total granted

$2.6M
$560k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
-1%

Still filing today

84%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $145k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEnvironmentEducationHealthRecreation & SportsAnimalsOther
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

  • JP
    JEREMIAH PROGRAM
    5× · 2021–2025 · $230k · revenue +107%
  • AC
    Austin Child Guidance Center
    4× · 2022–2025 · $180k · revenue +2%
  • ML
    MOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $170k · revenue +21%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue -1%
  • PM
    PRESBYTERIAN MO-RANCH ASSEMBLY
    one grant, 2024 · $60k · revenue 0%
  • TG
    THE GREAT SPRINGS PROJECT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +28%
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
Leadership Austin

Leadership austin connects and develops leaders to courageously engage and transform our communities.

Youth Development
2
Texprotects-the Texas Association for the Protection of Children

TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.

Youth Development
3
Center for Public Policy Priorities

At the Every Texan, we believe in a Texas that offers everyone the chance to compete and succeed in life. We envision a Texas where everyone is healthy, well educated, and financially secure. We want the best Texas, a proud state that sets…

Public Benefit
4
Raise Texas

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…

Human Services
5
Center for Austin Independent Journalism

To equip Austinites to make informed decisions through independent, in-depth reporting, diverse opinions, and civil dialogue. A strong local press is essential for a healthy community and democracy. We work to make Austin a more empowered…

Arts & Culture
6
Austin Street Center

The mission of austin street center is to provide emergency shelter and related services to the homeless. programs provide crisis intervention, substance abuse awareness information and opportunities to improve present life situations to…

—
7
Trees for Houston

Plant, protect and promote trees all over the greater Houston area.

—
8
Texas Alliance for Patient Access

Preserve access to quality healthcare for all texans

Community Improvement
9
American Civil Liberties Union of Texas Inc

The ACLU of Texas works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.

—
10
Austin Creative Alliance

The mission of Austin Creative Alliance is to advance, connect, and celebrate Austin's arts, culture, and creative communities in order to nourish and strengthen the character, quality of life, and economic prosperity of our region.

Arts & Culture
11
Texans Care for Children Inc

Texans Care for Children shapes public policies and brings Texans together to make children a statewide priority. We work so kids can have what they need to be healthy, secure, and thriving and so every Texan can have the best start to…

Crime & Legal
12
Central Texas Spca

Rescue neglected, unwanted homeless dogs and cats nurture and provide shelter until they are placed with a forever family strive to reduce animal overpopulation prevent cruelty to animals teach responsible pet ownership through an outreach…

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Austin Community Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Washington University. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

52 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. 52 of the 62 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
51/52
Grantees still filing
31/52
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN: $220,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTINAustin Child Guidance Center: $180,000 · OtherAustin Child Guidance CenterTHE SAFE ALLIANCE: $102,000 · OtherTHE SAFE ALLIANCEUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: $60,000 · OtherROCK RIDE ON CENTER FOR KIDS INC: $150,000 · OtherROCK RIDE ON CENTER FOR KIDS INCTHE SIMS FOUNDATION INC: $155,000 · OtherTHE SIMS FOUNDATION INCAUSTIN PETS ALIVE INC: $60,000 · OtherCASA of Central Texas Inc: $100,000 · OtherCASA of Central Texas Inc+25 more: $536,000 · Other+25 moreNATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST: $280,000 · PhilanthropyNATIONAL PHILA…UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 · PhilanthropyUNIVERSITY OF …AUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 · PhilanthropyAUSTIN COMMUNI…YOUTH AND FAMILY ALLIANCE: $170,000 · Human ServicesYOUTH AND FAM…PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $70,000 · Human ServicesPARTNERSHIPS …FAMILY ELDERCARE INC: $40,000 · Human ServicesFAMILY ELDERC…WOMENS STORYBOOK PROJECT OF TEXAS: $35,000 · Human ServicesWOMENS STORYB…The Myositis Association: $30,000 · Human ServicesThe Myositis …AUSTIN GROUPS FOR THE ELDERLY: $20,000 · Human ServicesDRIVE A SENIOR AUSTIN TEXAS: $20,000 · Human ServicesCENTRAL TEXAS YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU: $15,000 · Human Services+4 more: $40,000 · Human Services+4 moreHill Country Alliance: $110,000 · EnvironmentHill Country …HILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY: $100,000 · EnvironmentHILL COUNTRY …CCA TEXAS FUND: $65,000 · EnvironmentCCA TEXAS FUN…COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $50,000 · EnvironmentCOASTAL CONSE…THE GREAT SPRINGS PROJECT INC (AUDIT): $50,000 · EnvironmentTHE GREAT SPR…Travis Audubon Society Inc: $40,000 · EnvironmentTravis Audubo…JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $70,000 · EducationWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $60,000 · EducationLITERACY COALITION OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $40,000 · EducationBaylor College of Medicine: $40,000 · EducationBookSpring: $30,000 · EducationJEREMIAH PROGRAM: $230,000 · Housing & ShelterMOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC: $170,000 · ReligionPRESBYTERIAN MO-RANCH ASSEMBLY: $60,000 · Religion
Other$1,563,000Philanthropy$470,000Human Services$440,000Environment$415,000Education$240,000Housing & Shelter$230,000Religion$230,000

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 budgetNATIONAL PHILANTHROPIC TRUST: $280,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJEREMIAH PROGRAM: $230,000 over 5y, 0.3% of budgetAustin Child Guidance Center: $180,000 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetMOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC: $170,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetYOUTH AND FAMILY ALLIANCE: $170,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetTHE SIMS FOUNDATION INC: $155,000 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC: $150,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetROCK RIDE ON CENTER FOR KIDS INC: $150,000 over 5y, 3.7% of budgetHill Country Alliance: $110,000 over 5y, 2.1% of budgetTHE SAFE ALLIANCE: $102,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCASA of Central Texas Inc: $100,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetHILL COUNTRY CONSERVANCY: $100,000 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetPARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $70,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $70,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCCA TEXAS FUND: $65,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetWASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: $60,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAUSTIN PETS ALIVE INC: $60,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetPRESBYTERIAN MO-RANCH ASSEMBLY: $60,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCOASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: $50,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE GREAT SPRINGS PROJECT INC (AUDIT): $50,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF TRAVIS COUNTY: $50,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetLITERACY COALITION OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $40,000 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetBaylor College of Medicine: $40,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY ELDERCARE INC: $40,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTravis Audubon Society Inc: $40,000 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetCentral Texas Food Bank Inc: $35,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWOMENS STORYBOOK PROJECT OF TEXAS: $35,000 over 4y, 2.3% of budgetThe Public For Animal Welfare Inc: $35,000 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetBookSpring: $30,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetPARTNERS IN PARENTING: $30,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetHealth Alliance for Austin Musicians: $30,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetThe Myositis Association: $30,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetPease Park Conservancy: $21,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetAUSTIN GROUPS FOR THE ELDERLY: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTreeFolks Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetTexas Book Festival: $20,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCARITAS OF AUSTIN: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCENTRAL TEXAS YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSamaritan Center for Counseling and Pastoral Care Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCreate Healthy Management: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF AUSTIN ANIMAL CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetTHE FLATWATER FOUNDATON: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetAnthropos Arts: $10,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetHELPING HAND HOME FOR CHILDREN INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBRAVELOVE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSwan Songs Musical Last Wishes: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetAustin Clubhouse Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% 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…St David's FoundationThe Moody FoundationUnited Way for Greate…Better Business BureauShield-Ayres Foundati…Topfer Family Foundat…The Burdine Johnson F…Harry E and Eda L Mon…Rwh FoundationThe Webber Family Fou…Alice Kleberg Reynold…
Austin Community Foundation IncTX61.5× affinity30 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Austin Community Foundation Inc · St David's Foundation · The Moody Foundation · United Way for Greater Austin · Better Business Bureau · Shield-Ayres Foundation · Topfer Family Foundation · The Burdine Johnson Foundation · Harry E and Eda L Montandon Charitable Tr · Rwh Foundation · The Webber Family Foundation · Alice Kleberg Reynolds Meyer Foundat A0479800

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 The Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
19report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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.

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 62 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham’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