Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Marshal Verne Ross Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$556k
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$150k
Largest
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$1.6MHuman Services$542kYouth Development$514kHealth$491kRecreation & Sports$75kAnimals$70kPublic Safety & Disaster$36kPhilanthropy$35kOther$0
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $26k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $216k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $315k
$15,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$5.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BAYLOR SCOTT WHITE CENTRAL TX FDN$150,000
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HSC$90,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB$75,000
ST JOSEPH FOUNDATION$35,000
SALVATION ARMY$35,000
MIDLAND MEMORIAL FOUNDATION$30,000
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY WOMEN'S CENTE$30,000
TEXAS AM SCHOOL OF VET MEDICINE$25,000
SOS MINISTRIES$15,500
STILLCREEK RANCH$15,000
ST THOMAS EARLY LEARNING CENTER$10,000
STARLIGHT RIDING CENTER$10,000
MIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION$10,000
HOSPICE BRAZOS VALLEY$8,000
BUCKNER FOUNDATION$5,000
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 (FY23–25, $26k) land where the poverty rate runs at 22%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%HOSPICE BRAZOS VALLEY: $10k → 22%HOSPICE BRAZOS VALLEY: $8k → 22%HOSPICE BRAZOS VALLEY: $8k → 22%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.2M · 26 repeat orgs$120k to everyone else

26 repeat relationships: 17 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
3

Total granted

$3.2M
$30k

Still filing today

46%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationYouth DevelopmentRecreation & SportsReligionHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther
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

  • SO
    S O S Ministries INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $108k · revenue +91%
  • TA
    Texas A&M Foundation
    5× · 2018–2022 · $75k · revenue +49%
  • MC
    MIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION
    6× · 2017–2025 · $73k · revenue +93%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $15k
  • MC
    MIDLAND COLLEGE
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
  • OC
    ODESSA COLLEGE
    one grant, 2018 · $5k
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 State University Development Foundation

To support and further the mission of texas state university through the acceptance and investment of gifts established as endowments benefiting the students, faculty and staff.

Education
2
Texas a&M Research Foundation

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

Education
3
Texas a&M-Corpus Christi Foundation

For the benefit of texas a&m university - corpus christi

Education
4
Texas College

To ensure that the student body experiences balanced intellectual, psychological, social and spiritual development, aimed at enabling them to become active productive members of society where they live and work.

Education
5
Texas Trust Gives
Philanthropy
6
Texas Tech Alumni Association Endowment Trust

To assist in developing and increasing the facilities of texas tech university by and through activities of the texas tech alumni association. the goal is the advancement of higher education and broader educational opportunities including…

Education
7
West Texas a&M Univ Foundation

The foundation supports west texas a&m university, an institution of higher education, and the students of wtamu by receiving and administering gifts from the public.

Education
8
Texas a&M University - Kingsville Foundation Inc

The Foundation was formed to be a vital partner with Texas A&M University-Kingsville by developing donor relationships and linking resources in the pursuit of the University's goals of excellence.Values: Service to the University and the…

Education
9
Texas State University - San Marcos Research Foundation % Darryl Borgonah

The purpose of the university research foundation is to promote texas state university's objectives of providing higher education, conducting research, providing public service, and assisting in economic development in texas.

Education
10
Texas Collegiate Wrestling Foundation
Recreation & Sports
11
The Tstc Foundation

To complement the state of texas' support of the colleges by providing financial support for new and ongoing projects and activities in the areas of research, education and community service.

Education
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas a&M Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Buckner 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

12 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. 12 of the 30 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
8/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY: $495,000 · OtherTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITYBAYLOR SCOTT WHITE CENTRAL TX FDN: $375,000 · OtherBAYLOR SCOTT WHITE CENTRAL TX FDNBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB: $370,000 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY WOMEN'S CENTE: $295,000 · OtherTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY WOMEN'S CENTEMIDLAND MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: $247,000 · OtherMIDLAND MEMORIAL FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $222,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientST JOSEPH FOUNDATION: $120,500 · OtherSALVATION ARMY: $99,000 · OtherSTILLCREEK RANCH: $98,000 · OtherTEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HSC: $90,000 · Other+8 more: $245,530 · Other+8 moreTEXAS TECH FOUNDATION INC: $175,000 · EducationTEXAS TECH …Texas A&M Foundation: $75,000 · EducationTexas A&M F…MIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $73,000 · EducationMIDLAND COL…+1 more: $10,000 · EducationS O S Ministries INC: $107,500 · ReligionREACH THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $31,000 · Recreation & SportsCavalry Soccer: $30,000 · Recreation & SportsREFLECTION MINISTRIES OF TEXAS INC: $57,500 · Housing & ShelterCROSSVIEW CHRISTIAN CAMP & RETREAT: $36,000 · Youth DevelopmentHoomau Fire Academy: $15,000 · Youth DevelopmentBUCKNER FOUNDATION: $35,000 · PhilanthropyHospice Brazos Valley Inc: $25,600 · Human Services
Other$2,657,530Education$333,000Religion$107,500Recreation & Sports$61,000Housing & Shelter$57,500Youth Development$51,000Philanthropy$35,000Human Services$25,600

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: $175,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetS O S Ministries INC: $107,500 over 9y, 1.1% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $75,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetMIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $73,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetREFLECTION MINISTRIES OF TEXAS INC: $57,500 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetCROSSVIEW CHRISTIAN CAMP & RETREAT: $36,000 over 7y, 4.0% of budgetBUCKNER FOUNDATION: $35,000 over 7y, 5.0% of budgetREACH THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $31,000 over 3y, 5.4% of budgetCavalry Soccer: $30,000 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetHospice Brazos Valley Inc: $25,600 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHoomau Fire Academy: $15,000 over 3y, 8.9% of budgetODESSA COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% 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 S O S Ministries INC ↗
  • Who funds Texas A&M Foundation ↗
  • Who funds MIDLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds REFLECTION MINISTRIES OF TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds CROSSVIEW CHRISTIAN CAMP & RETREAT ↗
  • Who funds BUCKNER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds REACH THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Cavalry Soccer ↗
  • Who funds Hospice Brazos Valley Inc ↗
  • Who funds Hoomau Fire Academy ↗
  • Who funds ODESSA COLLEGE FOUNDATION 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 Fasken FoundationTX15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Fasken Foundation · Wayne & Jo Ann Moore Charitable Foundation · Abell-Hanger Foundation · Beal Foundation · Scharbauer Foundation Inc · Shell USA Company Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Marshal Verne Ross Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Marshal Verne Ross Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Marshal Verne Ross Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Marshal Verne Ross 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 30 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 Marshal Verne Ross’ filings →

    More from the funding graph