Skip to content
Virginia Lee Upham and Chester R Upham Jr Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Virginia Lee Upham and Chester R Upham Jr Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$65k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$20k
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 2025.

Food & Nutrition$200kHuman Services$155kPhilanthropy$145kHealth$40kPublic Safety & Disaster$28kYouth Development$10k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $60k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$859k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PALO PINTO AREA FOUNDATION INC$20,000
MEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY INC$20,000
MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE$10,000
GRACE HOUSE MINISTRIES INC$10,000
HOPE 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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $40k → 16%POSSUM KINGDOM WEST VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $25k → 16%MEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY INC: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $20k → 16%MEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY INC: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO AREA FOUNDATION INC: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $20k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO AREA FOUNDATION INC: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $20k → 16%PALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $20k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $10k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $10k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $10k → 16%HOPE INCORPORATED: $10k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $10k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $10k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $10k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $10k → 16%HOPE INCORPORATED: $5k → 16%HOPE INCORPORATED: $5k → 16%HOPE INCORPORATED: $5k → 16%HOPE INCORPORATED: $5k → 16%MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $5k → 16%HOPE INC: $5k → 16%HOPE INCORPORATED: $5k → 16%MINERAL WELLS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT: $3k → 16%STRAWN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%GORDON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%LAKE PALO PINTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%POSSUM KINGDOM EAST VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%LONE CAMP VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%BRAZOS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%GRAFORD VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%PALO PINTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 16%SANTO VOLUNTEER FIRE & EMS DEPARTMENT: $3k → 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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$530k · 7 repeat orgs$48k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +43% since the first grant, against +18% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
12

Total granted

$530k
$38k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+18%

Still filing today

71%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
Public Safety & DisasterReligionCrime & LegalFood & NutritionYouth 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

  • MW
    MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $95k · revenue +701%
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $40k · revenue +53%
  • HI
    HOPE INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $40k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • GS
    GIRL SCOUTS OF TEXAS OKLAHOMA PLAINS INC
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue -16%
  • MW
    MINERAL WELLS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
    one grant, 2022 · $3k · revenue -71%
  • SV
    STRAWN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
    one grant, 2022 · $3k · revenue +23%
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
Poteet Volunteer Fire Department Inc

The Poteet VFD is a 100% volunteer organization. In addition to responding to fires, vehicles accidents, medical emergencies and public assistance, the VFD is also trained to handle vehicle extrication.

Public Safety & Disaster
2
Scotland Volunteer Fire Department

Volunteer fire department

Public Safety & Disaster
3
Frelsburg Volunteer Fire Dept

Provide firefighting services for frelsburg, texas area.

Public Safety & Disaster
4
South Brazos County Fire Department

Volunteer Fire Department, providing fire, rescue, and medical services to a population of approximately 22,000 residents, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Public Safety & Disaster
5
Pecan Plantation Volunteer Fire Dpt & Emergency Medical Services Inc

Provides protection of property and preservation of life from and during fire or other emergencies within the area of its operation in hood and johnson counties, texas. also, provides rescue and various other emergency services in the…

—
6
Melvin Volunteer Fire Department Inc

Volunteer fire department

Public Safety & Disaster
7
Garrison Volunteer Fire Department

To provide fire and medical emergency services for the city of garrison, tx and the surrounding districts.

Public Safety & Disaster
8
Matador Motley County Volunteer Fire Department

Fire fighting and prevention

Public Safety & Disaster
9
Tolar Volunteer Fire Department

Volunteer fire department organized to contain fires in and around the city of tolar, county of hood, texas

Human Services
10
Clyde Volunteer Fire Department

To provide fire suppression, fire investigation, and search and rescue services to the citizens of clyde and the surrounding rural areas of callahan co., tx.

Public Safety & Disaster
11
Palacios Volunteer Fire Department Inc

To extinguish any fires and to help the community stay safe.

Public Safety & Disaster
12
Sand Hills Volunteer Fire Department Inc

To provide fire protection, education, emergency medical treatment and rescue services to approx 140 sq miles in guadalupe county texas.

Public Safety & Disaster
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Palo Pinto Volunteer Fire Dept; the most unlike its peers is Hope 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

16 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. 16 of the 20 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)
14/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $160,000 · OtherPALO PINTO COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELSPALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATION: $145,000 · OtherPALO PINTO COUNTY AREA FOUNDATIONPALO PINTO AREA FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 · OtherPALO PINTO AREA FOUNDATION INC+2 more: $5,000 · OtherMINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $95,000 · ReligionMINERAL WELLS CENTER…GRACE HOUSE MINISTRIES INC: $10,000 · ReligionGRACE HOUSE MINISTRI…MEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY: $40,000 · Food & NutritionHOPE INC: $40,000 · Crime & LegalMINERAL WELLS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterSTRAWN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterLAKE PALO PINTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterLone Camp Volunteer Fire Department: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterPALO PINTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterSANTO VOLUNTEER FIRE AND EMS DEPT: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterBRAZOS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterGORDON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterPossum Kingdom Westside Vol Fire Dept: $2,500 · Public Safety & DisasterHOPE WOMEN'S SHELTER INC: $10,000 · Human ServicesGIRL SCOUTS OF TEXAS OKLAHOMA PLAINS INC: $10,000 · Youth Development
Other$350,000Religion$105,000Food & Nutrition$40,000Crime & Legal$40,000Public Safety & Disaster$22,500Human Services$10,000Youth Development$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $95,000 over 9y, 11% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY: $40,000 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetHOPE INC: $40,000 over 7y, 2.1% of budgetHOPE WOMEN'S SHELTER INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF TEXAS OKLAHOMA PLAINS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLAKE PALO PINTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2,500 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetLone Camp Volunteer Fire Department: $2,500 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetPALO PINTO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT: $2,500 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetSANTO VOLUNTEER FIRE AND EMS DEPT: $2,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetGORDON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $2,500 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetPossum Kingdom Westside Vol Fire Dept: $2,500 over 1y, 1.7% 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.

Tartaglino Richards F…Texas Instruments Fou…Charities Aid Foundat…The Bank of America C…Amazonsmile Foundation
Tartaglino Richards FoundationTX17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tartaglino Richards Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Virginia Lee Upham and Chester R Upham Jr Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Virginia Lee Upham and Chester R Upham Jr Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 20 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 Virginia Lee Upham and Chester R Upham Jr’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