Skip to content
The Rothell Charitable Foundation of Central Texas Inc at a glance

· 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.

$98k
Granted FY2025still arriving
20
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Religion$146kCivil Rights$124kEducation$67kHuman Services$58kHealth$56kRecreation & Sports$48kFood & Nutrition$20kArts & Culture$15kOther$0
02FY2025 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k17 grants · $32k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $66k
$2,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST JUDE'S RANCH FOR CHILDREN$30,000
TEXAS ADVOCACY PROJECT$25,000
LEARNING BRIDGE$11,000
SIMPLE SPARROW CARE FARM$5,000
URBAN ROOTS$5,000
AUSTIN ANGELS$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
STEP N2 SUCCESS$1,000
FOSTERING HOPE$1,000
FRIENDS OF WILCO CHILD WELFARE$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 (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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%FOSTERING HOPE: $2k → 6%FOSTERING HOPE: $2k → 6%FOSTERING HOPE: $2k → 6%FOSTERING HOPE: $1k → 6%WONDERS & WORRIED: $1k → 10%WONDERS & WORRIES: $500 → 10%WONDERS AND WORRIES: $500 → 10%WONDERS AND WORRIES: $500 → 10%WONDERS AND WORRIES: $500 → 10%WONDERS & WORRIES: $250 → 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.
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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$464k · 27 repeat orgs$114k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +25% since the first grant, against +10% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
22

Total granted

$464k
$102k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
+10%

Still filing today

41%
32%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesEducationYouth DevelopmentArts & CulturePublic BenefitOther
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

  • TA
    Texas Advocacy Project
    7× · 2019–2025 · $124k · revenue +163%
  • LB
    Learning Bridge
    4× · 2022–2025 · $16k · revenue +25%
  • RR
    Round Rock Area Serving Center Inc
    7× · 2019–2025 · $12k · revenue +127%

Funded once

  • ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC
    one grant, 2024 · $40k · revenue +10%
  • ES
    ESSOFFER SCHOOL OF CULLINARY ARTS
    one grant, 2022 · $15k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $9k
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
Foster Angels of Central Texas Foundation

The organizations mission is to improve the lives of the children in foster care in central texas.

Human Services
2
Sjrc Texas Inc

To offer healing and hope to children and families affected by abuse, abandonment or neglect.

Human Services
3
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
4
Texas Girls and Boys Ranch

Sharing jesus, healing hearts, transforming lives.

Human Services
5
Texans for Lawsuit Reform

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,…

Crime & Legal
6
Children's Home of Lubbock and Family Service Agency Inc

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.

Human Services
7
Texas Center for Child and Family Studies

To strengthen the lives of children and families.

Human Services
8
Center for Child Protection

To reduce the trauma for children during the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases.

Crime & Legal
9
Cook Children's Physician Network

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.

Health
10
The Bair Foundation of Texas

To provide services to children, youth, and families along with a child-placing agency. to provide therapeutic foster care.

Human Services
11
Texans Care for Children Inc

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…

Crime & Legal
12
Cook Children's Health Plan

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.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Convoy of Hope; 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.
04the grantee network

23 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. 23 of the 55 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/23
Grantees still filing
18/23
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST JUDE'S RANCH (SJRC TEXAS): $116,500 · OtherST JUDE'S RANCH (SJRC TEXAS)AUSTIN ANGELS: $41,400 · OtherAUSTIN ANGELSST JUDE'S RANCH FOR CHILDREN: $35,000 · OtherST JUDE'S RANCH FOR CHILDRENCULINARY SCHOOL OF FORT WORTH: $18,400 · OtherESSOFFER SCHOOL OF CULLINARY ARTS: $15,000 · OtherSOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE: $14,000 · OtherRound Rock Area Serving Center Inc: $12,000 · Other+34 more: $101,547 · Other+34 moreTexas Advocacy Project: $123,500 · Arts & CultureTexas Advocacy ProjectST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $40,000 · HealthST JUDE C…HOPE HOUSE INC: $5,000 · HealthHOPE HOUS…TEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPITAL FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN: $4,000 · HealthTEXAS SCO…+1 more: $400 · HealthLearning Bridge: $16,000 · EducationTHE LPGA FOUNDATION: $4,600 · Education+1 more: $350 · EducationAUSTIN YOUTH & COMMUNITY FARM INC DBA URBAN ROOTS: $15,500 · Youth DevelopmentYOUNG LIFE: $1,950 · Youth DevelopmentFOSTERING HOPE AUSTIN: $7,000 · Human ServicesWonders & Worries Inc: $3,250 · Human ServicesPARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $2,000 · Human ServicesROUND ROCK POLICE FOUNDATION INC: $4,500 · Public Benefit
Other$353,847Arts & Culture$123,500Health$49,400Education$20,950Youth Development$17,450Human Services$12,250Public Benefit$4,500

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 budgetTexas Advocacy Project: $123,500 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $40,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLearning Bridge: $16,000 over 4y, 8.9% of budgetAUSTIN YOUTH & COMMUNITY FARM INC DBA URBAN ROOTS: $15,500 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetRound Rock Area Serving Center Inc: $12,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetFOSTERING HOPE AUSTIN: $7,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetSPIRIT REINS INC: $5,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetTHE LPGA FOUNDATION: $4,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetROUND ROCK POLICE FOUNDATION INC: $4,500 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetTEXAS SCOTTISH RITE HOSPITAL FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWonders & Worries Inc: $3,250 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTH PLAINS COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN: $2,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS BIGHORN SOCIETY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetYOUNG LIFE: $1,950 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMOONLIGHT FUND INC: $1,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetCENTRAL TEXAS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $825 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHOPE MOMMIES INC: $400 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOOK DRIVE FOR KIDS: $350 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMANCHESTER CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $200 over 1y, 0.4% 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 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 HOPE HOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds SPIRIT REINS 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 PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds THE ANNUNCIATION MATERNITY HOME INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS BIGHORN SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG LIFE ↗

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.

St David's FoundationA Glimmer of Hope Fou…Central Texas Communi…United Way WorldwideAustin Community Foun…The Blackbaud Giving …United Way of William…W D Kelley FoundationGeorgetown Healthcare…Topfer Family Foundat…United Way for Greate…Communities Foundatio…
St David's FoundationTX17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Rothell Charitable Foundation of Central Texas Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Rothell Charitable Foundation of Central Texas Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–30%
    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 55 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 Rothell Charitable Foundation of Central Texas’ 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