· Private foundation
The Rothell Charitable Foundation of Central Texas 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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 60% of THE ROTHELL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION OF CENTRAL TEXAS INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k17 grants · $32k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $66k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ST JUDE'S RANCH FOR CHILDREN | $30,000 |
| TEXAS ADVOCACY PROJECT | $25,000 |
| LEARNING BRIDGE | $11,000 |
| URBAN ROOTS | $5,000 |
| AUSTIN ANGELS | $5,000 |
| SIMPLE SPARROW CARE FARM | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $2,500 |
| ISAIAH 117 | $2,000 |
| ANNUNCIATION MATERNITY HOME | $2,000 |
| SOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE | $2,000 |
| ROUND ROCK SERVING CENTER | $1,500 |
| YOUNG LIFE | $1,250 |
| FOSTERING HOPE | $1,000 |
| STEP N2 SUCCESS | $1,000 |
| FRIENDS OF WILCO CHILD WELFARE | $1,000 |
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 (FY19–25, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 32% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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 +25% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
27 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k 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
- TATexas Advocacy Project7× · 2019–2025 · $124k · revenue +163%
- LBLearning Bridge4× · 2022–2025 · $16k · revenue +25%
- RRRound Rock Area Serving Center Inc7× · 2019–2025 · $12k · revenue +127%
Funded once
ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INCone grant, 2024 · $40k · revenue +10%- ESESSOFFER SCHOOL OF CULLINARY ARTSone grant, 2022 · $15k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $9k
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.
The organizations mission is to improve the lives of the children in foster care in central texas.
To offer healing and hope to children and families affected by abuse, abandonment or neglect.
TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.
Sharing jesus, healing hearts, transforming lives.
See Schedule OTLR works to shape policy primarily in the Texas civil justice and court system through public education, legislative advocacy and building broad public support for a fair, competent and honest judiciary as well as a fair,…
Working in creative collaboration to provide quality care that transforms the lives of at-risk children and their families through the active compassion of christ.
To strengthen the lives of children and families.
To reduce the trauma for children during the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases.
Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease, and injury.
To provide services to children, youth, and families along with a child-placing agency. to provide therapeutic foster care.
Texans Care for Children shapes public policies and brings Texans together to make children a statewide priority. We work so kids can have what they need to be healthy, secure, and thriving and so every Texan can have the best start to…
Knowing that every child's life is sacred, our promise is to improve the health of every child in our region through the prevention and treatment of illness, disease, and injury.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Convoy of Hope and the most unlike its peers is Manchester Charitable Foundation. 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 22 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
23 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. 23 of the 55 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 Texas Advocacy Project ↗
- Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds Learning Bridge ↗
- Who funds AUSTIN YOUTH & COMMUNITY FARM INC DBA URBAN ROOTS ↗
- Who funds Round Rock Area Serving Center Inc ↗
- Who funds FOSTERING HOPE AUSTIN ↗
- Who funds SPIRIT REINS INC ↗
- Who funds HOPE HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds THE LPGA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROUND ROCK POLICE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPITAL FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds CONVOY OF HOPE ↗
- Who funds Wonders & Worries Inc ↗
- Who funds SOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE ANNUNCIATION MATERNITY HOME INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS BIGHORN SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds YOUNG LIFE ↗
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: St David's Foundation · A Glimmer of Hope Foundation Austin · Central Texas Community Foundation · United Way Worldwide · Austin Community Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · United Way of Williamson County · W D Kelley Foundation · Georgetown Healthcare System Inc · Topfer Family Foundation · United Way for Greater Austin · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc
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 Rothell Charitable Foundation of Central Texas Inc 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.
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.