Skip to content

· Community foundation

Angelina County Community Fund Inc

Assist in community programs.

$233k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$67k
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 2024.

Housing & Shelter$534kFood & Nutrition$374kPublic Safety & Disaster$327kHealth$192kYouth Development$127kCrime & Legal$90kHuman Services$87kEducation$80kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $103k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $119k
$14,392
Median grant
1
States reached
$639k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Salvation Army$67,065
Angelina County Sr Citizens$52,094
Individual grant recipient$33,117
Boys & Girls Club of East Tx$16,049
Alcohol & Drug Abuse Council$14,392
Hospice in the Pines$14,392
Angelina County Protective$13,286
Hope Center$11,630
Lufkin Workshop$6,078
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, $583k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%Angelina County Sr Citizens: $52k → 16%Angelina County Sr Citizens: $52k → 16%Angelina County Sr Citizens: $49k → 16%ANGELINA COUNTY SR CITIZENS: $48k → 16%ANGELINA COUNTY SR CITIZENS: $48k → 16%ANGELINA COUNTY SR CITIZENS: $46k → 16%ANGELINA COUNTY SR CITIZENS: $46k → 16%ANGELINA COUNTY SR CITIZENS: $43k → 16%ANGELINA COUNTY SR CITIZENS: $41k → 16%Hospice in the Pines: $14k → 16%Hospice in the Pines: $14k → 16%Hospice in the Pines: $13k → 16%HOSPICE IN THE PINES: $12k → 16%HOSPICE IN THE PINES: $12k → 16%HOSPICE IN THE PINES: $11k → 16%HOSPICE IN THE PINES: $10k → 16%HOSPICE IN THE PINES: $10k → 16%WOMENS SHELTER OF ET: $10k → 16%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $10k → 16%HOSPICE IN THE PINES: $10k → 16%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $8k → 16%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $8k → 16%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $7k → 16%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $7k → 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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 12 repeat orgs$73k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +68% since the first grant, against -20% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
3

Total granted

$2.0M
$73k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+68%
-20%

Still filing today

58%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentHealthRecreation & SportsCommunity 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

  • AC
    ANGELINA COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENSINC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $426k · revenue +87%
  • BG
    Boys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas
    9× · 2017–2025 · $143k · revenue +18%
  • AD
    ALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE COUNCIL DEEP EAST TEXAS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $114k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • TS
    The Salvation Army
    one grant, 2017 · $60k
  • VS
    VOLUNTEER SERVICES COUNCIL
    one grant, 2018 · $6k · revenue -20%
  • LW
    LUFKIN WORKSHOP
    one grant, 2018 · $6k
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
Dawson County Senior Citizens Center Inc

Provide meals on wheels, congregate meals, and recreational facility for elderly and low income persons of dawson county texas.

—
2
Volunteer Services Council for Denton State Supported Living Center

To provide support programs for residents at the Denton State Supported Living Center including education programs, supplemental living needs and medical equipment.

Education
3
Volunteer Services Council for the Abilene

Enhancing the life of residents of the Abilene State Supported Living Center

Health
4
Nacogdoches Treatment Center for Hanicapped Children and Adults Inc

Treatment of handicapped and disabled children and adults and providing job training for disabled persons. Providing activities for Alzheimer's Disease patients.

Health
5
Angelina County Community Fund Inc

Assist in community programs.

Philanthropy
6
Womens Sober House of Lufkin Inc

The Mantooth House is a Recovery Residence for Chemically Dependent adult women who have successfully completed primary treatment and are in early, but active recovery. We exist to provide quality recovery housing and bridge the gap…

Health
7
Eastland County Crisis Center Inc

To provide services designed to meet the physical, social, and emotional needs of domestic violence and sexual assault victims by providing for immediate, short, and long-term needs.

Human Services
8
Womens Center of Brazoria County Inc

Comprehensive service to domestic violence and sexual assault victims

Human Services
9
Senior Citizens Services of Texarkana

Support Services for the elderly through nutritional assistance

Human Services
10
Texas Legal Services Center Inc

Texas Legal Services Center is a nonprofit legal aid organization whose mission is to serve the undeserved by making civil justice accessible to every Texan--no matter their ability to earn. We're a coalition of attorneys, paralegals, pro…

Crime & Legal
11
Mother and Unborn Child Care of Lufkin Inc

Support the needs of sexually active pregnant and mothering women and their families

—
12
Walworth County Care Center Inc

The mission of the walworth county care center is to provide access to long-term care services in a high quality, compassionate, and dignified manner to residents in walworth county.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Volunteer Services Council; the most unlike its peers is Lufkin Adult Learning Center 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

9 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. 9 of the 15 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SALVATION ARMY: $541,015 · OtherSALVATION ARMYIndividual grant recipient: $359,937 · OtherIndividual grant recipientAngelina County Protective: $103,176 · OtherAngelina County ProtectiveThe Salvation Army: $60,000 · OtherThe Salvation Army+3 more: $34,397 · OtherANGELINA COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENSINC: $425,675 · Human ServicesANGELINA COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENSI…HOSPICE IN THE PINES INC: $106,966 · Human ServicesHOSPICE IN THE PINES INCWOMENS SHELTER OF EAST TEXAS INC: $50,800 · Human ServicesWOMENS SHELTER OF EAST TEXAS INC+1 more: $6,450 · Human ServicesBoys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas: $143,094 · Youth DevelopmentALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE COUNCIL DEEP EAST TEXAS: $114,169 · HealthJDS CENTER OF HOPE Inc: $91,802 · Recreation & SportsDiboll Boosters Club Inc: $46,500 · Community Improvement
Other$1,098,525Human Services$589,891Youth Development$143,094Health$114,169Recreation & Sports$91,802Community Improvement$46,500

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

25%50%75%100%$10k$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetANGELINA COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENSINC: $425,675 over 9y, 5.8% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas: $143,094 over 9y, 1.1% of budgetALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE COUNCIL DEEP EAST TEXAS: $114,169 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetHOSPICE IN THE PINES INC: $106,966 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetJDS CENTER OF HOPE Inc: $91,802 over 9y, 5.9% of budgetWOMENS SHELTER OF EAST TEXAS INC: $50,800 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetDiboll Boosters Club Inc: $46,500 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetLUFKIN ADULT LEARNING CENTER INC: $10,980 over 2y, 78% of budgetVOLUNTEER SERVICES COUNCIL: $6,450 over 1y, 4.7% 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.

  • Who funds ANGELINA COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENSINC ↗
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas ↗
  • Who funds ALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE COUNCIL DEEP EAST TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds HOSPICE IN THE PINES INC ↗
  • Who funds JDS CENTER OF HOPE Inc ↗
  • Who funds WOMENS SHELTER OF EAST TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds Diboll Boosters Club Inc ↗
  • Who funds LUFKIN ADULT LEARNING CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds VOLUNTEER SERVICES COUNCIL ↗

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.

Tll Temple FoundationTX19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tll Temple 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 Angelina County Community Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Angelina County Community Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    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 · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 15 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Angelina County’s filings →

    More from the funding graph