· Private foundation
The Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis Foundation
Its FY2025 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 FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k18 grants · $72k
- $10k–50k24 grants · $445k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $575k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP | $173,267 |
| AUSITN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $101,500 |
| THE TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS | $90,000 |
| OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $60,000 |
| MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL | $50,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION | $30,000 |
| AMERICARES | $25,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE | $25,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE | $25,000 |
| REWILD | $25,000 |
| HELPING HAND FOR CHILDREN | $25,000 |
| SKIDMORE COLLEGE | $25,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $20,000 |
| CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL | $20,000 |
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 (FY18–24, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 80% 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 +47% since the first grant, against +37% for the ones you funded once.
58 repeat relationships — 40 still active in FY2024, 18 since wound down; 7 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, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $369k 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
UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF4× · 2017–2022 · $715k · revenue +76%
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC8× · 2017–2024 · $180k · revenue +98%- IRInternational Rescue Committee INC8× · 2017–2024 · $165k · revenue +81%
Funded once
- TUThe University of Coloradoone grant, 2017 · $60k
BAYLOR UNIVERSITYone grant, 2021 · $28k · revenue +15%
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +202%
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.
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…
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.
The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.
The ACLU Foundation of Texas is the unyielding guardian and promoter of freedom, justice, equality and dignity of all people, particularly for those who are still fighting to secure the full exercise of their civil rights and liberties.…
TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.
To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Glasstire is a website about visual art in Texas. Our mission is to expand the conversation about visual art in Texas.
To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.
To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.
The witte museum inspires people to shape the future of texas through transformative and relevant experiences in nature, science and culture.
Plant, protect and promote trees all over the greater Houston area.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Humanities Texas and the most unlike its peers is International Rescue Committee Inc. 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 37 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) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% 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.
64 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. 64 of the 89 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
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 UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF ↗
- Who funds AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds Austin Child Guidance Center ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM CENTER TEXAS ↗
- Who funds REWILD ↗
- Who funds Texans Care For Children Inc ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION ↗
- Who funds SKIDMORE COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE ↗
- Who funds TEXAS TRIBUNE INC ↗
- Who funds AUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Texas A&M Foundation ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC INC ↗
- Who funds HUMANITIES TEXAS ↗
- Who funds ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds Texas Book Festival ↗
- Who funds Save Our Springs Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds HEADWATERS SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Hill Country Alliance ↗
- Who funds CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Austin Wildlife Rescue ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds Bread for the World Institute ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR RESEARCH ON SCHIZOPHRENIA AND DEPRESSION ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC ↗
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: Austin Community Foundation Inc · Shield-Ayres Foundation · St David's Foundation · The Moody Foundation · Jacob and Terese Hershey Foundation · United Way for Greater Austin · Greater Houston Community Foundation · The Burdine Johnson Foundation · Dallas Jewish Community Foundation · The Bill M and Cecile Autrey Ham Charitable Foundation · Youth Emergency Services · The Cynthia & George Mitchell Foundation
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 Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis 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.
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
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 Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis 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.