Skip to content
The Sutton Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Sutton Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$127k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$455kArts & Culture$437kHealth$157kPhilanthropy$63kRecreation & Sports$53kHuman Services$49kYouth Development$22kReligion$20kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $2k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$25,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$161k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
University of Texas Foundation$100,000
Children's Safe Harbor$25,000
The Blackhorse Association$1,000
Alzheimer's Association$500
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 (FY17–17, $5k) 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%Crisis Assistance Center: $5k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
MA
OH
PA
CA
VA
TN
LA
GA
TX
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 14 repeat orgs$203k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +68% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
32

Total granted

$1.1M
$178k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+68%
+26%

Still filing today

57%
44%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
EducationHealthArts & CulturePhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • The Ohio University Foundation
    4× · 2019–2022 · $225k · revenue +119%
  • TC
    Texas Children's Hospital
    4× · 2020–2023 · $48k · revenue +69%
  • HT
    HOUSTON TEXANS FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $22k · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • HE
    HARDWOOD ENRICHMENT CLUB INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +67%
  • UO
    University of St Thomasgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue +70%
  • SG
    Susan G Komen Race for the Cure
    one grant, 2018 · $11k
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 a&M Research Foundation

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

Education
2
Scott & White Healthcare Foundation

To foster and support the activities and purposes of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH), to encourage broad-based public support of the healthcare system and its affiliated institutions, and to advance the medical objectives, including…

Health
3
Dallas College Foundation Inc

Dallas college foundation enhances the level of achievement and excellence of dallas college by providing scholarships, eliminating barriers that prevent students from attending and graduating, and supporting innovation.

Education
4
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
5
University of South Florida Foundation Inc

University of South Florida Foundation, Inc.'s mission is to provide charitable and educational aid to the University of South Florida; to promote education and other related activities of the University; and to encourage research,…

Education
6
Texas Children's Hospital Foundation

To create a healthier future for children and women throughout our global community by leading in patient care, education and research.

Health
7
Baylor Oral Health Foundation

The baylor oral health foundation was established to foster and support the activities and program of the texas a&m university college of dentistry (the college) to provide financial support for excellence at the college, and to advance…

Health
8
Texas Interscholastic League Foundation

The Foundation grants scholarships to Texas residents attending an accredited Texas college or university.

Education
9
Smu Golf Foundation

Support men's and women's intercollegiate golf programs at SMU

Education
10
The University of Texas Foundation No 1

To support the university of texas system

—
11
Ucf Athletics Association Inc

To provide opportunity to young people and develop leaders for industry, philanthropy, education and the community through the intercollegiate athletic experience.

Education
12
Forty First Foundation

The forty first foundation supports and advances the university of texas at austin in its pursuit of excellence. we work closely with the office of the president to identify, fund, and implement strategic initiatives that enhance the…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The University of Texas Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Braxton Davies Reed Charitable Foundation Inc. 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

24 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. 24 of the 48 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)
23/24
Grantees still filing
16/24
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Braxton Davies Reed Foundation: $440,000 · OtherBraxton Davies Reed FoundationTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOUNDATION INC: $200,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOUNDATION INCSerenity House: $80,328 · OtherSerenity House+28 more: $143,550 · Other+28 moreThe Ohio University Foundation: $225,000 · EducationThe Ohio University Fou…HARDWOOD ENRICHMENT CLUB INC: $20,000 · EducationHARDWOOD ENRICHMENT CLU…University of St Thomas: $15,000 · EducationUniversity of St Thomas+1 more: $200 · EducationTexas Children's Hospital: $48,000 · HealthEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $5,000 · HealthALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC: $3,500 · Health+1 more: $200 · HealthHOUSTON TEXANS FOUNDATION: $21,864 · Youth DevelopmentDec My Room Inc: $9,052 · Youth DevelopmentNAVY SEAL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · Arts & CultureARMY AVIATION HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND FLYING MUSEUM INC: $7,200 · Arts & CultureSTUTTERING ASSOCIATION FOR THE YOUNG INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureSPORTS AUTHORITY FOUNDATION: $13,000 · Recreation & SportsTHE ROGER CLEMENS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Philanthropy+2 more: $300 · Philanthropy
Other$863,878Education$260,200Health$56,700Youth Development$30,916Arts & Culture$22,200Recreation & Sports$13,000Philanthropy$10,300

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 budgetThe Ohio University Foundation: $225,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOUNDATION INC: $200,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTexas Children's Hospital: $48,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetHOUSTON TEXANS FOUNDATION: $21,864 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetHARDWOOD ENRICHMENT CLUB INC: $20,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetUniversity of St Thomas: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSPORTS AUTHORITY FOUNDATION: $13,000 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetNAVY SEAL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALPHA OMEGA COUNCIL INC: $10,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetReflective Life Ministries: $10,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetTHE ROGER CLEMENS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetDec My Room Inc: $9,052 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetEPILEPSY FOUNDATION OF TEXAS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetOPERATION RED WINGS FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSTUTTERING ASSOCIATION FOR THE YOUNG INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC: $3,500 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DOLLYWOOD FOUNDATION: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBraxton Davies Reed Charitable Foundation Inc: $200 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetYELLOWSTONE ACADEMY INC DBA YELLOWSTONE SCHOOLS: $200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN: $200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSMILE TRAIN INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMontgomery County Community Foundation: $100 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.

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.

Shell USA Company Fou…Greater Houston Commu…Charities Aid Foundat…National Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…American Endowment Fo…Natl Christian Charit…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Shell USA Company FoundationTX15.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Shell USA Company Foundation · Greater Houston Community Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Sutton Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Sutton Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Shriners Hospitals for Children: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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 Sutton Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Sutton 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 48 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 Sutton’s 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