Skip to content
Arnold & Irene Kocurek Fdn 1986 Tr at a glance

· Private foundation

Arnold & Irene Kocurek Fdn 1986 Tr

Its FY2026 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$75k
Granted FY2026still arriving
29
Grants FY2026still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2026.

Animals$234kHuman Services$207kEducation$168kReligion$147kFood & Nutrition$127kHealth$112kPublic Safety & Disaster$45kEmployment$40kOther$0
02FY2026 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,300
Median grant
2
States reached
$853k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT$5,000
RED LETTER RESCUE & REHAB$5,000
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE OF GREATER HOUSTON$5,000
SCHOLARSHOT$5,000
BOYSVILLE$5,000
LIVING LOVE RESCUE SHELTER$5,000
HEART OF TEXAS LAB RESCUE$5,000
SECOND CHANCE FARM$5,000
HELPING HAND CRISIS MINISTRY$5,000
AUSTIN PETS ALIVE$5,000
ANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF SAN ANTONIO$1,600
FRIENCH SIMPSON MEMORIAL LIBRARY$1,300
ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO$1,300
SAN ANTONIO PETS ALIVE INC$1,300
ST PETER - ST JOSEPH CHILDREN'S HOME$1,300
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 (FY20–26, $87k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $5k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $5k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $5k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%THE CHILDREN'S SHELTER: $3k → 16%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%THE CHILDREN'S SHELTER: $3k → 16%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $2k → 14%BOYSVILLE: $10k → 16%BOYSVILLE: $10k → 16%BOYSVILLE: $10k → 16%BOYSVILLE: $5k → 16%BOYSVILLE: $4k → 16%BOYSVILLE: $3k → 16%ALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $3k → 16%ALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $3k → 16%ALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $3k → 16%ALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $2k → 16%ALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $2k → 16%ALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $2k → 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.
$1.1M · 44 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +19% since the first grant, against +9% for those funded once.

44 repeat relationships: 21 still active in FY2026, 23 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

44
2

Total granted

$1.1M
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+9%

Still filing today

43%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
AnimalsHuman ServicesHealthReligionPublic Safety & DisasterEducationOther
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

  • WR
    WILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC
    7× · 2020–2026 · $90k · revenue +43%
  • SA
    SAN ANTONIO FOOD BANK
    7× · 2020–2026 · $58k · revenue +18%
  • SC
    SECOND CHANCE FARM
    6× · 2021–2026 · $43k · revenue +9%

Funded once

  • TS
    THE SAFE ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +9%
  • SO
    SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL - KITCHEN
    one grant, 2020 · $4k
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
Texas Round Up Animal Alliance Inc

Adoption and shelter facility for unwanted, abandoned and neglected animals. provide aid to the community who need help with vetting or care of their animals.

Animals
2
Central Texas Spca

Rescue neglected, unwanted homeless dogs and cats nurture and provide shelter until they are placed with a forever family strive to reduce animal overpopulation prevent cruelty to animals teach responsible pet ownership through an outreach…

Animals
3
The Humane Society of Austin & Travis County Inc

The austin humane society (ahs) offers comprehensive, humane, life-saving animal services, transforming the lives of animals and those who love them. because we believe homeless animals deserve a chance to thrive in a loving environment,…

Animals
4
Animal Resource Center Inc

To prevent the overpopulation of cats and dogs by funding spay and neuter services for domestic animals owned by the residents of San Antonio and Bexar County. To develop, promote, and sponsor programs of education to encourage better…

—
5
Lone Star Sanctuary for Animals Inc

Shelter, food and veterniary care provided for animals in a clean shelter environment. this is a no-kill facility. animals are neutered, vaccinated, microchipped prior to being adopted. every effort is made to educate the community about…

Animals
6
Humane Society of Central Texas

As an advocate for the community goal of maintaining its no kill status, the humane society provides adoption, rescue and foster opportunities for the homeless animals at the city of waco animal shelter, as well as community education…

Animals
7
South Texas Animal Rescue Group

We own and operate a spay/neuter and wellness clinic. Our purpose is to end animal cruelty in Texas, spay/neuter, vaccinate, and end the dumping and abandonment of cats and dogs. We also have an education program to teach Texas residents…

Animals
8
Spca of Texas

The spca of texas is dedicated to providing every animal exceptional care and a loving home.

Animals
9
Helotes Humane Society

Rescue and place abandoned and unwanted pets. Provide low cost spay / neuter. Provide low-cost microchips. Provide community education.

Animals
10
One Tail At a Time West Texas

One tail at a time west texas otat wtx serves the rural communities of west texas by supporting animal shelter operations rescuing and sheltering homeless unwanted companion animals dogs and cats primarily arranging their veterinary care…

Animals
11
Pet Orphans of Southern California

In addition to rescue and adoption, pet orphans provides a wide range of services including education, medical/financial, spay/neuter, and training assistance.

Animals
12
Humane Society of Southern Arizona

To compassionately serve pets and the people who love them.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Unicorn Centers Inc; the most unlike its peers is Mico Volunteer Fire Department. 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

25 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 25 of the 54 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)
23/25
Grantees still filing
19/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $79,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S HOSPITALSAN ANTONIO FOOD BANK: $58,300 · OtherSAN ANTONIO FOOD BANKMRDC UNICORN CENTERS INC: $57,000 · OtherMRDC UNICORN CENTERS INCSACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH: $44,300 · OtherSACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCHThe Winston School: $40,000 · OtherFRIENCH SIMPSON MEMORIAL LIBRARY: $28,300 · OtherKLRN ALAMO PUBLIC TELECOMMUNCATIONS COUN: $28,000 · OtherHALLETTSVILLE ISD - LIBRARY: $27,000 · OtherSisters of Divine Providence: $26,300 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY: $26,000 · Other+27 more: $351,550 · Other+27 moreWILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC: $90,300 · AnimalsWILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHA…SECOND CHANCE FARM: $43,000 · AnimalsSECOND CHANCE FARMAUSTIN PETS ALIVE INC: $32,000 · AnimalsAUSTIN PETS ALIVE INCSan Antonio Pets Alive Inc: $30,550 · AnimalsSan Antonio Pets Alive I…LIVING LOVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $22,250 · AnimalsLIVING LOVE ANIMAL RESCU…ANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF TEXAS: $16,500 · AnimalsANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF…HUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO (AUDIT): $15,300 · AnimalsHUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN AN…+2 more: $10,000 · AnimalsBOYSVILLE INC: $42,000 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $24,500 · Human ServicesALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $14,500 · Human ServicesTHE CHILDREN'S SHELTER: $6,000 · Human ServicesMISSION ROAD MINISTRIES: $22,300 · ReligionMico Volunteer Fire Department: $20,250 · Public Safety & DisasterBRIGHTON CENTER: $17,300 · EducationST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $9,000 · Health
Other$765,750Animals$259,900Human Services$87,000Religion$22,300Public Safety & Disaster$20,250Education$17,300Health$9,000

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 budgetWILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC: $90,300 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetSAN ANTONIO FOOD BANK: $58,300 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND CHANCE FARM: $43,000 over 6y, 3.0% of budgetBOYSVILLE INC: $42,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetThe Winston School: $40,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetAUSTIN PETS ALIVE INC: $32,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSan Antonio Pets Alive Inc: $30,550 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $24,500 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetSAN ANTONIO METROPOLITAN MINISTRIES INC: $24,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetMISSION ROAD MINISTRIES: $22,300 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetLIVING LOVE ANIMAL RESCUE: $22,250 over 5y, 5.1% of budgetSCHOLARSHOT: $22,000 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO: $22,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetMico Volunteer Fire Department: $20,250 over 4y, 2.8% of budgetBRIGHTON CENTER: $17,300 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF TEXAS: $16,500 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO (AUDIT): $15,300 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO: $14,500 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC: $9,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S SHELTER: $6,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE SAFE ALLIANCE: $5,000 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 WILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION INC ↗
  • Who funds SAN ANTONIO FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds SECOND CHANCE FARM ↗
  • Who funds BOYSVILLE INC ↗
  • Who funds The Winston School ↗
  • Who funds AUSTIN PETS ALIVE INC ↗
  • Who funds San Antonio Pets Alive Inc ↗
  • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
  • Who funds SAN ANTONIO METROPOLITAN MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds MISSION ROAD MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds LIVING LOVE ANIMAL RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds SCHOLARSHOT ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO ↗
  • Who funds Mico Volunteer Fire Department ↗
  • Who funds UNICORN CENTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds BRIGHTON CENTER ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO (AUDIT) ↗
  • Who funds ALLIED WOMENS CENTER OF SAN ANTONIO ↗

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.

San Antonio Area Foun…Cb and Anita Branch T…Keith M Orme and Pat …Faye L & William L Co…Harvey E Najim Charit…John R & Greli N Less…The Dixie Starnes Wen…Nancy Smith Hurd Foun…The Texas Cavaliers C…United Way of San Ant…United Way WorldwideAmy Shelton McNutt Ch…
San Antonio Area FoundationTX35.4× affinity15 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: San Antonio Area Foundation · Cb and Anita Branch Trust James L Drought Trustee · Keith M Orme and Pat Vigeon Orme Charitable Foundation · Faye L & William L Cowden Charitable Foundation · Harvey E Najim Charitable Foundation · John R & Greli N Less Charitable Trust #FE324 · The Dixie Starnes Wenger Foundation · Nancy Smith Hurd Foundation · The Texas Cavaliers Charitable Foundation · United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County · United Way Worldwide · Amy Shelton McNutt Charitable Trust

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 Arnold & Irene Kocurek Fdn 1986 Tr funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Arnold & Irene Kocurek Fdn 1986 Tr. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    4report 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 54 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Arnold & Irene Kocurek Fdn 1986 Tr’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