Skip to content
The Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
48
Grants FY2024still arriving
15
States reached
$173k
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 2025.

Education$3.0MPhilanthropy$1.5MInternational$1.4MHealth$1.1MEnvironment$542kAnimals$383kCrime & Legal$240kArts & Culture$210kOther$0
02FY2024 · 48 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k18 grants · $72k
  • $10k–50k24 grants · $445k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $575k
$15,000
Median grant
15
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
HELPING HAND FOR CHILDREN$25,000
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE$25,000
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE$25,000
SKIDMORE COLLEGE$25,000
AMERICARES$25,000
REWILD$25,000
AUSTIN CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER$20,000
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE$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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HEALTHNETWORK FOUNDATION: $20k → 17%FAMILY ELDERCARE: $5k → 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
NY
MA
OR
OH
CT
CA
CO
MO
VA
MD
AR
TN
DC
OK
MS
AL
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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.1M · 58 repeat orgs$607k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +47% since the first grant, against +37% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

58
23

Total granted

$7.1M
$238k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+37%

Still filing today

69%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $369k 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
AnimalsEducationInternationalArts & CultureEnvironmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF
    4× · 2017–2022 · $715k · revenue +76%
  • MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $180k · revenue +98%
  • IR
    International Rescue Committee INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $165k · revenue +81%

Funded once

  • TU
    The University of Colorado
    one grant, 2017 · $60k
  • BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2021 · $28k · revenue +15%
  • ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATEDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +202%
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
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
2
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.

—
3
Progress Texas Institute

The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.

Civil Rights
4
Aclu Foundation of Texas Inc

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.…

Civil Rights
5
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
6
The University of TexasTexas a&M Investment Management Company

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…

Education
7
Rainforest Trust

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

International
8
Glasstire

Glasstire is a website about visual art in Texas. Our mission is to expand the conversation about visual art in Texas.

Arts & Culture
9
Texas a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
10
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
11
Witte Museum

The witte museum inspires people to shape the future of texas through transformative and relevant experiences in nature, science and culture.

Arts & Culture
12
Trees for Houston

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

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Humanities Texas; 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.
04the grantee network

64 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. 64 of the 89 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)
11
Early backer (in before they grew)
63/64
Grantees still filing
52/64
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $2,223,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXASMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $615,083 · OtherMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITALMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $173,267 · Other+48 more: $1,679,000 · Other+48 moreUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $715,000 · InternationalUNITED STATES FUND …AMERICARES FOUNDATION INC: $185,000 · InternationalAMERICARES FOUNDATI…MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $180,000 · InternationalMEDECINS SANS FRONT…International Rescue Committee INC: $165,000 · InternationalInternational Rescu…Bread for the World Institute: $45,000 · International+3 more: $20,000 · InternationalSKIDMORE COLLEGE: $110,000 · EducationTEXAS TRIBUNE INC: $105,000 · EducationTexas A&M Foundation: $100,000 · EducationHEADWATERS SCHOOL: $91,200 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION: $90,000 · EducationBAYLOR UNIVERSITY: $28,000 · EducationAUSTIN CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION DBA ST FRANCIS SCHOOL: $28,000 · Education+2 more: $6,000 · EducationREWILD: $141,000 · AnimalsANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE: $95,000 · AnimalsAustin Wildlife Rescue: $65,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $55,000 · AnimalsWILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC: $40,000 · AnimalsTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $35,000 · AnimalsAUSTIN PETS ALIVE INC: $30,000 · Animals+2 more: $3,000 · AnimalsSave Our Springs Alliance Inc: $92,500 · EnvironmentHill Country Alliance: $80,000 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $70,000 · EnvironmentPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $45,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $20,000 · EnvironmentTexans Care For Children Inc: $130,000 · Crime & LegalCENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION: $110,000 · Crime & Legal+1 more: $5,000 · Crime & LegalFREEDOM CENTER TEXAS: $145,000 · Human ServicesHAYS-CALDWELL WOMEN'S CENTER: $22,000 · Human ServicesHEALTHNETWORK FOUNDATION FKA HEALTH NET FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 · Human Services+1 more: $5,000 · Human Services
Other$4,690,350International$1,310,000Education$558,200Animals$464,000Environment$307,500Crime & Legal$245,000Human Services$192,000

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 budgetUNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF: $715,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICARES FOUNDATION INC: $185,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $180,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetInternational Rescue Committee INC: $165,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetAustin Child Guidance Center: $145,000 over 8y, 1.1% of budgetFREEDOM CENTER TEXAS: $145,000 over 8y, 6.1% of budgetREWILD: $141,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetTexans Care For Children Inc: $130,000 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetSKIDMORE COLLEGE: $110,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION: $110,000 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetTEXAS TRIBUNE INC: $105,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE: $105,000 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetAUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $101,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE: $95,000 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetPEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC INC: $95,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANITIES TEXAS: $95,000 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetTexas Book Festival: $95,000 over 8y, 1.2% of budgetSave Our Springs Alliance Inc: $92,500 over 8y, 2.4% of budgetHEADWATERS SCHOOL: $91,200 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION: $90,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetHill Country Alliance: $80,000 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $70,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetAustin Wildlife Rescue: $65,000 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetWILDLIFE CONSERVATION NETWORK INC: $55,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetPARKS AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $45,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetBread for the World Institute: $45,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetOrgan Preservation Alliance Incorporated: $40,000 over 3y, 10.0% of budgetNATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR RESEARCH ON SCHIZOPHRENIA AND DEPRESSION: $40,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetWILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC: $40,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $35,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFriends of Lyndon B Johnson National Historical Park: $35,000 over 3y, 22% of budgetSOCIETY FOR CRYOBIOLOGY INC (C/O PARACORP): $33,000 over 6y, 2.7% of budgetAUSTIN PETS ALIVE INC: $30,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ALEX FUND INC: $30,000 over 6y, 4.5% of budgetBAYLOR UNIVERSITY: $28,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAUSTIN CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION DBA ST FRANCIS SCHOOL: $28,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetHAYS-CALDWELL WOMEN'S CENTER: $22,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetFilm Society of Austin Inc: $22,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetHEALTHNETWORK FOUNDATION FKA HEALTH NET FOUNDATION INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTexas Cultural Trust Council: $15,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetPease Park Conservancy: $14,500 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetFOUNDATION COMMUNITIES INC: $12,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetACCION INTERNATIONAL: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTELLURIDE SCIENCE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetProject Transitions Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTreeFolks Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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 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 SKIDMORE COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS TRIBUNE INC ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ALLIANCE WORLDWIDE ↗
  • Who funds AUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Texas A&M Foundation ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CLINIC INC ↗
  • Who funds HUMANITIES TEXAS ↗
  • 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 Organ Preservation Alliance Incorporated ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR RESEARCH ON SCHIZOPHRENIA AND DEPRESSION ↗

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…Shield-Ayres Foundati…St David's FoundationThe Moody FoundationJacob and Terese Hers…United Way for Greate…Greater Houston Commu…The Burdine Johnson F…Dallas Jewish Communi…The Bill M and Cecile…Youth Emergency Servi…The Cynthia & George …
Austin Community Foundation IncTX43× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Americares Foundation Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
15report 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 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.

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 89 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.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $1.4M of grant expense with no grantee named in the published copy. A private foundation itemizes every grant it makes, so a return carrying none has filed its list as an attachment that the public copy does not include. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Elizabeth Crook & Marc Lewis’ 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