Skip to content
The Dixon Water Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

The Dixon Water 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.

$401k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$159k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Animals$1.4MEnvironment$1.2MPhilanthropy$250kFood & Nutrition$94kScience & Tech$58kReligion$41kYouth Development$35kEducation$34kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $185k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $209k
$20,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$61M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BORDERLANDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AR SRSU$159,000
HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL$50,000
TEXAS LAND CONSERVANCY$40,000
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC DBA AUDUBON TEXAS$40,000
TEXAS AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST$25,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN TEXAS$20,000
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC$18,591
HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE$16,000
NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS$15,000
DEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY$10,000
SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION$7,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 87% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $135k → 8%AUDUBON TEXAS: $25k → 10%KIDS ON THE LAND: $25k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE: $75k → 13%SUL ROSS SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $150k → 14%OGALLALA COMMONS INC: $30k → 17%HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL: $75k → 14%PIONEERS USA: $41k → 13%MERIDIAN INSTITUTE: $25k → 9%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $50k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $55k → 8%NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $45k → 10%KIDS ON THE LAND: $25k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE: $60k → 13%SUL ROSS SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $150k → 14%HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 14%MERIDIAN INSTITUTE: $25k → 9%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $35k → 6%NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $45k → 10%KIDS ON THE LAND: $25k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE: $50k → 13%SUL ROSS SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $150k → 14%HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 14%NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $28k → 10%THE DEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY: $50k → 10%KIDS ON THE LAND: $25k → 11%NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE: $50k → 13%SUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY: $75k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN TEXAS: $50k → 16%HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 14%THE DEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY: $25k → 10%SUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN TEXAS: $25k → 16%HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL: $25k → 14%SUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE: $30k → 10%SUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%TEXAS AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST: $25k → 16%NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC DBA AUDUBON TEXAS: $50k → 10%SUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY: $25k → 14%TEXAS AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST: $25k → 16%HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE: $25k → 10%TEXAS AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST: $25k → 16%NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC DBA AUDUBON TEXAS: $40k → 10%HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE: $25k → 10%YMCA: $25k → 16%TEXAS WATER TRADE: $25k → 10%HILL COUNTRY ALLIANCE: $25k → 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

MT
MN
WI
NY
CO
VA
NM
NC
DC
TX
FL
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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.7M · 25 repeat orgs$348k to everyone else

25 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
14

Total granted

$2.7M
$170k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+65%
+110%

Still filing today

52%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $178k 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
EnvironmentAnimalsPhilanthropyEducationFood & NutritionScience & TechOther
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

  • TN
    THE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS
    4× · 2020–2024 · $133k · revenue +631%
  • HC
    Hill Country Alliance
    5× · 2019–2024 · $121k · revenue +127%
  • TL
    Texas Land Conservancy
    2× · 2019–2024 · $90k · revenue +124%

Funded once

  • P
    PIONEERS
    one grant, 2019 · $41k
  • TC
    Taking Care of Texasgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +300%
  • BR
    BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $23k · revenue +16%
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 Foundation for Conservation

Fish and wildlife conservation and outreach including public awareness. Fifteen public relations campaign on social media with over 7.5 million impressions. Twenty plus speaking engagements to a variety of conservation organizations…

Animals
2
Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas

Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation (TPWF) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization thatadvances Texas proud outdoor traditions through meaningful, high-impact programs,partnerships, and a wide range of projects that conserve and enhance our…

Environment
3
Big Thicket Natural Heritage Trust

We acquire properties to be donated to the National Park Service and state entities and advocate for protection of Big Thicket natural resources.

Environment
4
Trinity Park Conservancy

Trinity Park Conservancy champions the transformation of the Trinity River to become the heart of Dallas. With the community, the Conservancy will design public spaces that unite us, enrich people's lives through access to nature, create…

Community Improvement
5
Bexar Land Trust Inc dba Green Spaces Alliance of South Texas

The mission of Bexar Land Trust (Green Spaces) is to sustain the natural environment and enhance urban spaces through land conservation, community engagement, and education.

Environment
6
Coastal Prairie Conservancy

The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) works to sustain a resilient Texas by preserving coastal prairies, wetlands, farms, and ranches to benefit people and wildlife forever. Continued on Schedule OCPC conserves land, restores and enhances…

Environment
7
Tenngreen Land Conservancy

The organization's primary mission is conserving land where people and nature can thrive by creating green corridors linking existing public lands using conservation easments and outright purchase.

Recreation & Sports
8
Wetlands America Trust Inc

Wetlands america trust, inc. is a nonprofit organization formed in 1985 to expand ducks unlimited, inc's mission to provide leadership in the protection of the natural balance of wetlands ecosystems ensuring the future viability of…

Environment
9
Texas Rice Industry Coalition for T Environment

Build a coalition of interests to foster and strengthen relationships between the rice industry and the natural resources of our rice producing area.

Environment
10
Bayou Land Conservancy

To preserve land along streams for flood control, clean water, and wildlife in the geographical area that drains into lake houston.

Environment
11
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
12
Texas Clean Energy Coalition
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Conservation Alliance; the most unlike its peers is Holistic Manangement International. 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

25 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. 25 of the 41 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
24/25
Grantees still filing
21/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SUL ROSS SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $450,000 · OtherSUL ROSS SUPPORT FOUNDATIONSUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY: $260,000 · OtherSUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITYNORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE: $235,000 · OtherNORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGEUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $190,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXASBORDERLANDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AR SRSU: $159,000 · OtherBORDERLANDS RESEARCH INSTITUTE AR SRSUTHE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $132,587 · OtherTHE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXASTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN TEXAS: $95,000 · OtherNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC DBA AUDUBON TEXAS: $90,000 · Other+10 more: $246,900 · Other+10 moreHill Country Alliance: $121,000 · EnvironmentHill Country AllianceKIDS ON THE LAND INC: $100,000 · EnvironmentKIDS ON THE LAND INCTexas Land Conservancy: $90,000 · EnvironmentTexas Land ConservancyDEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY: $85,000 · EnvironmentDEVILS RIVER CONSERVANC…Texas Agricultural Land Trust: $85,000 · EnvironmentTexas Agricultural Land…PEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC: $58,500 · EnvironmentPEOPLE AND CARNIVORES I…TEXAS WATER TRADE: $50,000 · EnvironmentTEXAS WATER TRADETaking Care of Texas: $25,000 · Environment+2 more: $11,500 · EnvironmentHOLISTIC MANANGEMENT INTERNATIONAL: $250,000 · PhilanthropyHOLISTIC MA…Meridian Institute: $50,000 · PhilanthropyMeridian In…UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC: $18,591 · PhilanthropyUNIVERSITY …American Bird Conservancy: $85,000 · AnimalsTexas Conservation Alliance: $19,500 · AnimalsROCKY MOUNTAIN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $15,000 · AnimalsOGALLALA COMMONS INC: $90,000 · Food & NutritionREGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION: $3,500 · Food & NutritionBOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INC: $22,590 · Science & TechDUKE UNIVERSITY: $15,000 · EducationBIG BEND RANCH RODEO INC: $700 · Education+1 more: $500 · EducationHeadwaters at Incarnate Word Inc: $15,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$1,858,487Environment$626,000Philanthropy$318,591Animals$119,500Food & Nutrition$93,500Science & Tech$22,590Education$16,200Crime & Legal$15,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHOLISTIC MANANGEMENT INTERNATIONAL: $250,000 over 5y, 6.0% of budgetTHE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS: $132,587 over 4y, 11% of budgetHill Country Alliance: $121,000 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetKIDS ON THE LAND INC: $100,000 over 4y, 38% of budgetTexas Land Conservancy: $90,000 over 2y, 6.0% of budgetOGALLALA COMMONS INC: $90,000 over 6y, 5.7% of budgetDEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY: $85,000 over 3y, 18% of budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $85,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTexas Agricultural Land Trust: $85,000 over 4y, 0.8% of budgetPEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC: $58,500 over 4y, 4.9% of budgetTEXAS WATER TRADE: $50,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetMeridian Institute: $50,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION INC: $27,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetTaking Care of Texas: $25,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetBOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INC: $22,590 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTexas Conservation Alliance: $19,500 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC: $18,591 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHeadwaters at Incarnate Word Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetREGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION: $3,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTEXAS LAND TRUST COUNCIL: $1,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetBIG BEND RANCH RODEO INC: $700 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetMARFA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.4% 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 HOLISTIC MANANGEMENT INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds THE NATIVE PRAIRIES ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds Hill Country Alliance ↗
  • Who funds KIDS ON THE LAND INC ↗
  • Who funds Texas Land Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds OGALLALA COMMONS INC ↗
  • Who funds DEVILS RIVER CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds American Bird Conservancy ↗
  • Who funds Texas Agricultural Land Trust ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE AND CARNIVORES INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS WATER TRADE ↗
  • Who funds Meridian Institute ↗
  • Who funds THE SAND COUNTY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Taking Care of Texas ↗
  • Who funds BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds Texas Conservation Alliance ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
  • Who funds Headwaters at Incarnate Word Inc ↗
  • Who funds SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS LAND TRUST COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds BIG BEND RANCH RODEO 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.

The Horizon FoundationThe Cynthia & George …Shield-Ayres Foundati…Jacob and Terese Hers…Meadows Foundation IncHixon Family Foundati…The Knobloch Family F…Still Water FoundationAustin Community Foun…PatagoniaorgNational Fish and Wil…The Malcolm C Damuth …
The Horizon FoundationTX24.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Horizon Foundation · The Cynthia & George Mitchell Foundation · Shield-Ayres Foundation · Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation · Meadows Foundation Inc · Hixon Family Foundation · The Knobloch Family Foundation · Still Water Foundation · Austin Community Foundation Inc · Patagoniaorg · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Malcolm C Damuth 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 Dixon Water Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Dixon Water Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 The Dixon Water Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Dixon Water 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 41 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.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Dixon Water’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