· Private foundation
The Joyce Nies and Peter Witt Foundation
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k16 grants · $57k
- $10k–50k6 grants · $126k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BCS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY | $40,000 |
| TAMU - ART FUND | $25,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION | $20,000 |
| METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES FO | $18,050 |
| BRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK | $13,000 |
| WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN | $10,000 |
| TINY HOPE VILLAGE | $9,500 |
| BRAZOS INTERFAITH IMMIGRATION NETWO | $9,000 |
| VOICES FOR CHILDREN | $5,025 |
| UNLIMITED POTENTIAL OF BV | $5,008 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $5,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS USA | $5,000 |
| OXFAM AMERICA | $5,000 |
| UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CHURCH OF BV | $4,950 |
| NATURE CONSERVANCY | $3,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $39k) land where the poverty rate runs at 22%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% 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 +39% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
29 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 8 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, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k 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
- VFVoices for Children Inc6× · 2017–2024 · $32k · revenue +77%
- BVBRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK INC7× · 2017–2024 · $27k · revenue +39%
- THTINY HOPE VILLAGE4× · 2019–2024 · $19k · revenue +134%
Funded once
- RREACHone grant, 2020 · $3k
- RAROGUE ACTION CENTERone grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue -16%
- CICANE ISLAND KATY INCone grant, 2023 · $1k
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.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
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.
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
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.…
As a national leader in environmental health research and advocacy, toxic- free future uses the power of science, education, and activism, to drive strong laws and corporate responsibility that protect the health of all people and the…
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
To enrich life through discovery, education, and the conservation of plants and the natural environment.
Nature and culture international conserves biologically diverse landscapes in latin america, in concert with local cultures, for the well-being of the planet.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated and the most unlike its peers is Brazos Valley Troupe. 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 41 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) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 7% 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.
30 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. 30 of the 72 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 Voices for Children Inc ↗
- Who funds BRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK INC ↗
- Who funds University of Illinois Foundation ↗
- Who funds TINY HOPE VILLAGE ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Brazos Valley Troupe ↗
- Who funds WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds Unlimited Potential Inc ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE BRAZOS VALLEY ↗
- Who funds OXFAM-AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds TIDELINES INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds ROGUE ACTION CENTER ↗
- Who funds Brazos Valley Museum of Natural History ↗
- Who funds THE THEATRE COMPANY OF BCS ↗
- Who funds THE ACADEMY OF LEISURE SCIENCES ↗
- Who funds ABRAHAM LINCOLN BRIGADE ARCHIVES INC ↗
- Who funds MARCH FOR LIFE ACTION ↗
- Who funds HARRIETT BUHAI CENTER FOR FAMILY LAW ↗
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: B Don & Becky Russell Charitable Foundat · Winkler Nina Astin Trust · Edge Eugene III Charitable Trust · Nina Heard Astin Charitable Trust · Mervin and Annete Peters Family Foundation · M Bookman Peters Charitable Foundation · Gilbert & Thyra Plass Charitable Trust · Orr Waldon H and Adele Charitable Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good
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 Joyce Nies and Peter Witt 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.
- Rogue Action Center — 29% of income from government
- Oxfam-America 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 Joyce Nies and Peter Witt Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Joyce Nies and Peter Witt 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.