Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Lockett Foundation Inc

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.

$118k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$56k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$449kYouth Development$25kArts & Culture$14kReligion$11kHuman Services$10kHealth$3k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $22k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $56k
$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Texas Tech Foundation$56,125
Texas Tech Alumni Association (TTAA)$40,000
Boys & Girls Club of Vernon$5,500
Vernon College$5,000
Ronald McDonald House$2,000
Admiral Nimitz Foundation$2,000
Gillespie County Historical Society$2,000
Blanco Education Foundation$2,000
Holy Ghost Lutheran Church$2,000
Red River Valley Museum$1,000
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 (FY18–18, $250) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Hospice of Wichita Falls: $250 → 9%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$510k · 12 repeat orgs$2k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue 0% since the first grant, against -16% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
3

Total granted

$510k
$2k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
-16%

Still filing today

75%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationArts & CultureHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • TT
    TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $255k · revenue +27%
  • BA
    Boys and Girls Club of Vernon Inc
    8× · 2018–2025 · $25k · revenue +48%
  • RR
    Red River Valley Museum
    8× · 2018–2025 · $5k · revenue +247%

Funded once

  • CU
    Christ United Methodist Church
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • SH
    Sterling High School Boosters
    one grant, 2018 · $500
  • HO
    Hospice of Wichita Falls Inc
    one grant, 2018 · $250 · 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
Conservation History Association of Tx

The Association is developing, distributing and archiving oral histories, atlas maps and descriptive essays, and wildlife illustrations to expand public appreciation and grasp of Texas environmental history.

Education
2
Texas Government Accountability Foundation Inc

To foster transparency and uphold ethical standards across all levels of government in texas and empower citizens to hold their government accountable.

Public Benefit
3
Houston Museum of Natural Science

The mission of the Houston Museum of Natural Science shall be to preserve and advance the general knowledge of natural science; to enhance in individuals the knowledge of and delight in natural science and related subjects; and to maintain…

Arts & Culture
4
Brenham Heritage Museum

Foster the history, art, culture, & humanities of the brenham-washington county, tx region.

Arts & Culture
5
Texas a&M Research Foundation

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

Education
6
Houston Independent School District Foundation

The HISD Foundation is dedicated to mobilizing the local community to support innovative priorities in HISD to improve outcomes for all students in the district. Our mission is to fund projects and programs of merit that fall outside of…

—
7
Brazoria County Historical Museum

Preserve the history of brazoria county, texas.

Arts & Culture
8
Historic Waco Foundation Inc

To collect, maintain, preserve, publish and interpret the heritage and history of waco, mclennan county, texas

Arts & Culture
9
Texas Food & Wine Alliance fka Austin F&W Alliance

Texas Food & Wine Alliance is dedicated to fostering awareness and innovation in the Texas culinary community through grants, educational programing, and events.

—
10
The Museum of North Texas History

To collect, preserve, exhibit and interpret the history of the North Texas Area to inspire an interest in the past for the education and enrichment of people of all ages.

Arts & Culture
11
West Texas Hunting and Fishing Heritage Museum Inc

The Museum was organized to distribute educational information and data on animals of the world; and provide a channel for organized efforts to promote a public understanding and acceptance of sport hunting as an effective tool for…

Arts & Culture
12
Texas Business Hall of Fame Foundation

To recognize the accomplishments and contributions of our outstanding Texas business leaders and to perpetuate and inspire the values of entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity, and community leadership in all generations of Texans.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Tech Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Blanco Education Foundation. 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 15 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
4/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC: $255,075 · EducationTEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INCTEXAS TECH ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $170,000 · EducationTEXAS TECH ALUMNI ASSOCIATION+2 more: $9,000 · EducationBoys and Girls Club of Vernon Inc: $24,625 · OtherBoys and Girl…Vernon College: $15,000 · OtherVernon Colleg…Ronald McDonald House: $10,000 · OtherRonald McDona…NORTH AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH: $10,000 · OtherNORTH AMERICA…+2 more: $1,500 · OtherGILLESPIE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureRed River Valley Museum: $4,500 · Arts & CultureADMIRAL NIMITZ FOUNDATION: $4,000 · Arts & CultureCreate Healthy Management: $3,000 · HealthHospice of Wichita Falls Inc: $250 · Human Services
Education$434,075Other$61,125Arts & Culture$13,500Health$3,000Human Services$250

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 budgetTEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC: $255,075 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetTEXAS TECH ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $170,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of Vernon Inc: $24,625 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetBlanco Education Foundation: $7,000 over 5y, 2.1% of budgetGILLESPIE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $5,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetRed River Valley Museum: $4,500 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetADMIRAL NIMITZ FOUNDATION: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCreate Healthy Management: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHospice of Wichita Falls Inc: $250 over 1y, 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 TEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS TECH ALUMNI ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Boys and Girls Club of Vernon Inc ↗
  • Who funds Blanco Education Foundation ↗
  • Who funds GILLESPIE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds Red River Valley Museum ↗
  • Who funds ADMIRAL NIMITZ FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Create Healthy Management ↗
  • Who funds THE TEXAS HILL COUNTRY HIGHER EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Hospice of Wichita Falls 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.

Dian Graves Owen FoundationTX15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Dian Graves Owen Foundation · The Community Foundation of the Texas Hill Country Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Lockett Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Lockett Foundation Inc. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 15 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 Lockett’s filings →

    More from the funding graph