Skip to content
The University of Texas Foundation Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The University of Texas Foundation Inc

To advance education through financial support of the university of texas system, including all of its branches, departments, schools and colleges at its fourteen institutions, to improve its research, teaching, scholarship, faculties and facilities.

$61M
Granted FY2024still arriving
14
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$24M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2024.

Education$170MHealth$141MScience & Tech$2.3M
02FY2024 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $33k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $240k
  • $250k+10 grants · $61M
$2,237,484
Median grant
1
States reached
$98M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN$24,264,720
UTMD ANDERSON$17,145,132
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO$5,028,316
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO$3,697,756
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON$3,476,821
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS$3,067,523
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS EL PASO$2,237,484
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ARLINGTON$959,403
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM$712,121
UT PERMIAN BASIN$430,712
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN$108,636
UTMB GALVESTON$78,790
UT TYLER$52,987
UT RIO GRANDE VALLEY$32,786
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 56% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO: $5.0M → 16%UTMD ANDERSON: $17.7M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS EL PASO: $2.2M → 21%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $24.3M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS: $3.1M → 14%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO: $3.0M → 16%UTMD ANDERSON: $17.1M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS EL PASO: $1.9M → 21%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $23.7M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS: $1.9M → 14%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO: $2.2M → 16%UTMD ANDERSON: $16.0M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $20.4M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS: $1.2M → 14%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO: $1.9M → 16%UTMD ANDERSON: $11.6M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $16.8M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS: $1.1M → 14%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO: $1.3M → 16%UTMD ANDERSON: $11.4M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $14.7M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO: $1.1M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M D ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $10.6M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $14.3M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO: $771k → 16%UTMD ANDERSON: $9.7M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $8.3M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M D ANDERSON CANCER CENTER: $6.7M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN: $6.8M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $4.3M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $6.3M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM: $1.5M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $3.7M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $3.5M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM: $1.4M → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $2.9M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $2.5M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM: $718k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $2.8M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $2.3M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM: $712k → 10%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $2.4M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $1.7M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $1.9M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $774k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $1.7M → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $771k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SAN ANTONIO: $1.7M → 16%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.
$313M · 14 repeat orgs$490k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
3

Total granted

$313M
$490k

Still filing today

0%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $135M
  • UA
    UTMD ANDERSON
    8× · 2017–2024 · $101M
  • TU
    THE UNIV OF TX HEALTH SCIENCE CTR OF SA
    8× · 2017–2024 · $21M

Funded once

  • TU
    The University of Texas Law School Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $244k · revenue +187%
  • HP
    HIGHLAND PARK ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $123k · revenue +90%
  • SP
    ST PHILIPS SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $123k · revenue +136%
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
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 17 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
3/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $134,825,138 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXASUTMD ANDERSON: $100,718,856 · OtherUTMD ANDERSONTHE UNIV OF TX HEALTH SCIENCE CTR OF SA: $21,315,883 · OtherTHE UNIV OF TX HEALTH SCIENCE CTR OF SAUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $18,328,832 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTONUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO: $15,891,072 · Other+10 more: $22,433,360 · Other+10 moreThe University of Texas Law School Foundation: $244,295 · EducationHIGHLAND PARK ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $122,862 · Education
Other$313,513,141Education$367,157

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThe University of Texas Law School Foundation: $244,295 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetHIGHLAND PARK ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $122,862 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetST PHILIPS SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTER: $122,862 over 1y, 2.1% 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 The University of Texas Law School Foundation ↗
  • Who funds HIGHLAND PARK ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ST PHILIPS SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY CENTER ↗

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.

Communities Foundatio…Donor Advised Charita…
Communities Foundation of Texas IncTX13× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 University of Texas Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The University of Texas Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 17 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on University of 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