Skip to content
The William S Davis Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The William S Davis Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$100k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
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$210kHealth$142kHuman Services$110kEnvironment$60kHousing & Shelter$23kRecreation & Sports$20k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$100,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$895k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY$100,000
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 (FY17–18, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Gladney Center for Adoption: $20k → 11%Gladney Center for Adoption: $10k → 11%Dream Park: $20k → 11%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.

57%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$380k · 3 repeat orgs$285k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
9

Total granted

$380k
$285k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+22%
+25%

Still filing today

100%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHuman ServicesHealthHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • TC
    TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2019–2025 · $310k · revenue +38%
  • CF
    CAREITY FOUNDATION
    3× · 2018–2023 · $40k · revenue -5%
  • TG
    THE GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $30k · revenue +22%

Funded once

  • BS
    Baylor Scott & White All Saints Health Foundation
    one grant, 2022 · $100k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF THE FORT WORTH NATURE CENTER & REFUGE INC
    one grant, 2024 · $60k · revenue +15%
  • TG
    THE GATEHOUSE CORPORATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $45k · revenue +25%
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
Guardianship Services Inc

Guardianship services, inc. (gsi) answers the call to protect tarrant county's vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect and exploitation with services ranging from guardianship to money management, victim advocacy and financial literacy…

Human Services
2
Texas Children's Urgent Care

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

Health
3
Dallas Children's Advocacy Center

Our mission is to improve the lives of abused children in dallas county and provide national leadership on child abuse issues.

Human Services
4
Alliance for Children Inc

The mission of the alliance for children is to protect tarrant county children from child abuse through teamed investigation, healing services, and community education.

Civil Rights
5
Anesthesiologists for Children

Provide anesthesia services to patients at children's medical center of dallas. these services are provided without regard to a patient's ability to pay for the services.

—
6
Texas Children's Global

To lead efforts that advance healthcare equity through innovative collaboration in care, education, and research globally.

Education
7
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
8
Fort Worth Crisis Pregnancy Center

Our mission is to empower young women and men to make a positive decision about their unplanned pregnancy.

Health
9
Tch Pediatric Associates Inc

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

Health
10
Family and Child Guidance Center

Our mission is to provide quality mental health services to children and adults in low income families who are impacted by severe and persistent mental illness, emotional disturbances, child abuse and neglect, high-risk behaviors and…

Health
11
Cook Children's Health Care System

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
12
Texas Wesleyan University

Texas wesleyan university, guided by its deep methodist heritage, provides transformational learning experiences and research opportunities to a diverse group of students to develop their full potential as individuals and as members of the…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ach Child and Family Services; the most unlike its peers is Texas Christian University. 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

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 12 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $310,000 · EducationTEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY+1 more: $10,000 · EducationBaylor Scott & White All Saints Health Foundation: $100,000 · OtherBaylor Scott & White All Saints Health…FRIENDS OF THE FORT WORTH NATURE CENTER & REFUGE INC: $60,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE FORT WORTH NATURE CENTE…THE GATEHOUSE CORPORATION: $45,000 · OtherTHE GATEHOUSE CORPORATIONACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $20,000 · OtherACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES+1 more: $2,000 · OtherTHE GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $30,000 · Human ServicesDREAM PARK: $20,000 · Human ServicesCAREITY FOUNDATION: $40,000 · HealthTHE WOMEN'S CENTER OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $5,000 · HealthPROJECTHANDUP: $22,610 · Housing & Shelter
Education$320,000Other$227,000Human Services$50,000Health$45,000Housing & Shelter$22,610

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 CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $310,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE FORT WORTH NATURE CENTER & REFUGE INC: $60,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetCAREITY FOUNDATION: $40,000 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetTHE GLADNEY CENTER FOR ADOPTION: $30,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetPROJECTHANDUP: $22,610 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetDREAM PARK: $20,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGILL CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetTHE WOMEN'S CENTER OF TARRANT COUNTY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

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.

Thomas M Helen McKee …Community Foundation …The Morris FoundationThe Roach Foundation …Bnsf Railway Foundati…Communities Foundatio…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation IncTX17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Thomas M Helen McKee & John P Ryan Fo John P Ryan Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · The Morris Foundation · The Roach Foundation Inc · Bnsf Railway Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas 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 William S Davis Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The William S Davis Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    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 12 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 William S Davis Family’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