Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Wi & Inez Davis Foundation

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.

$212k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$57k
Largest
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.

Human Services$571kEducation$298kPublic Safety & Disaster$263kFood & Nutrition$130kCrime & Legal$114kReligion$73kRecreation & Sports$40kCommunity Improvement$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $150k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $57k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER$56,700
FRIENDS OF CENTER ROUGHRIDER ATHLETICS$29,450
METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME$25,000
SHELBYVILLE HIGH SCHOOL$20,550
FANNIE BROWN BOOTH MEMORIAL LIBRARY$20,000
HUXLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT$15,000
ALCUIN SCHOOL$15,000
SHELBYVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT$15,000
ALCUIN SCHOOL-SCHOLARSHIP FUND$10,000
LADONIA CEMETARY ASSOCIATION INC$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 (FY17–25, $563k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $30k → 16%METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $30k → 16%METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $25k → 16%METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $25k → 16%METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $25k → 16%METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $25k → 16%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $57k → 21%METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $20k → 16%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $43k → 21%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $41k → 21%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $41k → 21%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $41k → 21%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $41k → 21%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $41k → 21%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $41k → 21%SHELBY COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $41k → 21%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 28% of The Wi & Inez Davis Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 99% of the giving stays in TX; by stated purpose, 97%.

The Wi & Inez Davis Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 16 repeat orgs$111k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +68% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

16 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
10

Total granted

$1.4M
$81k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+68%
+21%

Still filing today

31%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k 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
EducationHuman ServicesPublic Safety & DisasterYouth DevelopmentCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • SC
    SHELBY COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $383k · revenue +68%
  • MC
    METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME
    7× · 2017–2025 · $180k · revenue +66%
  • HV
    HUXLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
    8× · 2018–2025 · $133k · revenue +113% · 35% of their budget

Funded once

  • AS
    ALCUIN SCHOOL - SHINE CAMPAIGN
    one grant, 2024 · $25k
  • CF
    Christus Foundation Shreveport-Bossiergraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue +350%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
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
Shelby County Ambulance Commission

Ambulance commission

—
2
Shelby County Historical Society

Preserve the history of shelby county al

—
3
Shelby Christian Outreach Inc

Serve the needs of the people of shelby with financial and other assistance.

Religion
4
Shelby County Fair Association

Conduct the annual county fair

Recreation & Sports
5
Shelby County Community Outreach Shelby County Community Outreach

Home repair and housing assistance

Housing & Shelter
6
Lubbock Christian School

Lubbock christian school is dedicated to providing a quality environment in which each student will grow in wisdom and stature and in favor with god and man. lcs strives for excellence spiritually, personally, and professionally among…

Education
7
Shelby Community Fire Department

To provide fire protection services

—
8
The Shelby County Memorial Hospital Association

To maintain a patient-centered environment that encourages and supports innovation and teamwork in achieving excellence. to maximize customer satisfaction by meeting the highest standards of value, service, and performance. to provide…

Health
9
Shelby County Drug Court Support Foundation

To support the shelby county drug court.

Crime & Legal
10
Midland Baptist Crisis Center

Assist families in need with food and clothing

Human Services
11
Big Horn County Memorial Hospital Auxiliary
Health
12
Shelby County Children's Advocacy Center

Shelby County Children's Advocacy Center, Inc. is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to ending child abuse through education, advocacy, counseling, family support, and the pursuit of justice.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Methodist Children's Home; the most unlike its peers is Fannie Brown Booth Memorial Li. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 27 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SHELBYVILLE ISD SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $151,162 · OtherSHELBYVILLE ISD SCHOLARSHIP FUNDSHELBYVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $130,000 · OtherSHELBYVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES (CASA) OF DEEP EAST TEXAS: $113,675 · OtherCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES (CASA) OF DEEP EAS…SHELBYVILLE HIGH SCHOOL: $100,025 · OtherSHELBYVILLE HIGH SCHOOLCOMMUNITY CHRISTIAN SERVICES: $31,500 · OtherOPERATION BLUE SANTA: $27,000 · OtherALCUIN SCHOOL - SHINE CAMPAIGN: $25,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $24,500 · Other+11 more: $106,543 · Other+11 moreSHELBY COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $382,725 · Human ServicesSHELBY COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER I…METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $180,000 · Human ServicesMETHODIST CHILDREN'S HOMEHUXLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $132,500 · Public Safety & DisasterHUXLEY VO…FANNIE BROWN BOOTH MEMORIAL LI: $55,000 · EducationALCUIN SCHOOL: $45,000 · Education+1 more: $104 · EducationFRIENDS OF CENTER ROUGHRIDER ATHLETICS: $29,450 · Youth DevelopmentSHELBY COUNTY OUTREACH MINISTRIES INC: $7,500 · Community Improvement
Other$709,405Human Services$562,725Public Safety & Disaster$132,500Education$100,104Youth Development$29,450Community Improvement$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSHELBY COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $382,725 over 9y, 9.4% of budgetMETHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $180,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetHUXLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $132,500 over 8y, 35% of budgetALCUIN SCHOOL: $45,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF CENTER ROUGHRIDER ATHLETICS: $29,450 over 1y, 17% of budgetOPERATION BLUE SANTA: $27,000 over 4y, 48% of budgetChristus Foundation Shreveport-Bossier: $15,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetSHELBY COUNTY OUTREACH MINISTRIES INC: $7,500 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetJacksonville College: $104 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.

  • Who funds SHELBY COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME ↗
  • Who funds HUXLEY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT ↗
  • Who funds FANNIE BROWN BOOTH MEMORIAL LI ↗
  • Who funds ALCUIN SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF CENTER ROUGHRIDER ATHLETICS ↗
  • Who funds OPERATION BLUE SANTA ↗
  • Who funds Christus Foundation Shreveport-Bossier ↗
  • Who funds SHELBY COUNTY OUTREACH MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds Jacksonville College ↗

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.

East Texas Communities FoundationTX13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: East Texas Communities Foundation · 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 Wi & Inez Davis Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Wi & Inez Davis Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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
    0get no government money at all
    2report 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 27 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 Wi & Inez Davis’ filings →

    More from the funding graph