Skip to content
The Cathy and Dwight Thompson Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Cathy and Dwight Thompson 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.

$223k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$310kFood & Nutrition$230kYouth Development$186kHealth$129kHousing & Shelter$94kPublic Safety & Disaster$94kCrime & Legal$73kReligion$50kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $135k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SALVATION ARMY$50,000
FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES$30,000
SCOUTING AMERICA$25,000
AMERICAN RED CROSS$20,000
EL BUEN SAMARITANO$15,000
SAFE ALLIANCE$15,000
PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC$15,000
GIRL SCOUTS$15,000
SALVATION ARMY LUBBOCK$7,500
YWCA OF LUBBOCK$7,500
CASA OF TARRANT COUNTY$7,500
ALZHEIMERS TEXAS$7,500
KINDERFROGS SCHOOL AT TCU$7,500
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC: $15k → 10%CASA OF TARRANT COUNTY: $8k → 11%SCOUTING AMERICA: $25k → 14%YWCA OF LUBBOCK: $8k → 17%PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC: $10k → 10%PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC: $10k → 10%KINDERFROGS SCHOOL AT TCU: $8k → 11%SALVATION ARMY LUBBOCK: $8k → 17%PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC: $10k → 10%SAFE ALLIANCE: $15k → 10%SAFE ALLIANCE: $10k → 10%SAFE ALLIANCE: $10k → 10%SAFE ALLIANCE: $10k → 10%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $20k → 10%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $20k → 10%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $20k → 10%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $15k → 10%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $15k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $50k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $50k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $50k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $50k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $30k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $20k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $15k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $15k → 10%FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES: $30k → 10%FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES: $30k → 10%FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES: $10k → 10%FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES: $10k → 10%GIRL SCOUTS: $15k → 10%GIRL SCOUTS: $15k → 10%BOY SCOUTS: $10k → 10%GIRL SCOUTS: $10k → 10%GIRL SCOUTS: $10k → 10%BOY SCOUTS: $10k → 10%GIRL SCOUTS: $10k → 10%BOY SCOUTS: $10k → 10%BOY SCOUTS: $10k → 10%EL BUEN SAMARITANO: $15k → 10%EL BUEN SAMARITANO: $10k → 10%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $50k → 10%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $50k → 10%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $50k → 10%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $30k → 10%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $20k → 10%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $15k → 10%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $15k → 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.
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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 21 repeat orgs$30k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +12% since the first grant, against -9% for those funded once.

21 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
1

Total granted

$1.2M
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+12%
-9%

Still filing today

43%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthFood & NutritionHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesCivil RightsOther
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

  • Central Texas Food Bank Inc
    7× · 2017–2024 · $230k · revenue +12%
  • FC
    FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $94k · revenue +99%
  • PC
    PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $65k · revenue +82%

Funded once

  • FC
    FREEDOM CENTER TEXAS
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue -9%
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 Casa Inc

To promote and develop local court-appointed special advocates programs throughout texas.

Civil Rights
2
Texas Chapter of the American College of Cardiology

The purpose of the texas chapter of the american college of cardiology is to contribute to the prevention of cardiovascular diseases, to ensure optimal quality of care for individuals with such diseases, and to foster the highest…

—
3
Family Abuse Center Inc

The family abuse center exists to eliminate domestic violence in central texas by sheltering victims of domestic violence and by preventing abuse from occurring through intervention and education.

Human Services
4
Children's Advocacy Centers of Texas Inc

Children's advocacy centers of texas, inc. (cactx) is the statewide organization for its 70 children's advocacy centers (cac's) across texas. cactx leads efforts, in partnership with investigatory and prosecution agencies, to pursue…

Crime & Legal
5
Texas Council On Family Violence Inc

Texas council on family violence is the only 501(c)3 nonprofit coalition in texas dedicated solely to creating safer communities and freedom from family violence. with a statewide reach and direct local impact, tcfv, with the collective…

Crime & Legal
6
Community Action Inc of Central Texas

Established in 1965, community action, inc. of central texas has continuously worked to assist low to moderate income families in central texas by providing a variety of social services and economic opportunities. the agency has four areas…

Human Services
7
Texas Alliance for Patient Access

Preserve access to quality healthcare for all texans

Community Improvement
8
Texas Pharmacy Association

The association's purpose is to promote the role of the pharmacist and the practice of pharmacy in the state of texas.

—
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
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Travis County

To promote and protect the best interest of children who have been abused or neglected by empowering volunteers to advocate for their safety, well-being, and for opportunities to thrive.

—
11
Community Health Center of Lubbock Inc

Provide quality primary and preventataive health care services to those in need.

Health
12
Children's Hospital Association of Texas

To advance children's health and well-being by advocating for policies and funding that promote children's access to high-quality, comprehensive health care.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Freedom Center Texas; the most unlike its peers is American Heart Association Inc. 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

10 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. 10 of the 23 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SALVATION ARMY: $280,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMYAMERICAN RED CROSS: $94,000 · OtherAMERICAN RED CROSSGIRL SCOUTS: $69,500 · OtherGIRL SCOUTSTHE SAFE ALLIANCE: $60,000 · OtherTHE SAFE ALLIANCEBOY SCOUTS: $55,000 · OtherBOY SCOUTSEL BUEN SAMARITANO INC: $49,500 · OtherEL BUEN SAMARITANO INCLIFEWORKS: $30,000 · Other+9 more: $116,500 · Other+9 moreCentral Texas Food Bank Inc: $230,000 · Food & NutritionCentral Texas Food Ban…FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES INC: $94,000 · Housing & ShelterFOUNDATIO…PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC INC: $65,000 · HealthAmerican Heart Association Inc: $18,000 · Health+1 more: $2,500 · HealthCASA OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $12,500 · Civil RightsFREEDOM CENTER TEXAS: $5,000 · Human Services
Other$754,500Food & Nutrition$230,000Housing & Shelter$94,000Health$85,500Civil Rights$12,500Human Services$5,000

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 budgetCentral Texas Food Bank Inc: $230,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetFOUNDATION COMMUNITIES INC: $94,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetPEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC INC: $65,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SAFE ALLIANCE: $60,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $18,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetALZHEIMERS TEXAS INC: $17,500 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF LUBBOCK: $12,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCASA OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $12,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFREEDOM CENTER TEXAS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetAMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC: $2,500 over 3y, 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.

  • Who funds Central Texas Food Bank Inc ↗
  • Who funds FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC INC ↗
  • Who funds THE SAFE ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
  • Who funds ALZHEIMERS TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF LUBBOCK ↗
  • Who funds CASA OF TARRANT COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds FREEDOM CENTER TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA5.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 The Cathy and Dwight Thompson Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Cathy and Dwight Thompson Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 23 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 Cathy and Dwight Thompson’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