· Public charity
Brazos Foundation Inc
To financially support charitable organizations in palo pinto county, tx, and surrounding areas through fundraising and incom from investments
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 5 grants below total $56,650 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $75,550 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $18,900 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $9k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $48k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $17,650 |
| MINERAL WELLNESS CENTER INC | $10,000 |
| CHARLIES ANGELS SENIOR CTR | $10,000 |
| GRACE HOUSE | $10,000 |
| FRIENDS OF MW DOG PARK | $9,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY22–22, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
6 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $57k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- TMTHE MAX AND BILLIE CLARK FOUNDATION5× · 2018–2023 · $68k · revenue +13%
- MWMINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE2× · 2017–2021 · $20k · revenue +701%
- MOMEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY2× · 2020–2022 · $18k · revenue +93%
Funded once
- GIGORDON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTone grant, 2022 · $20k
- PPPALO PINTO HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2018 · $17k
- TDTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF GORDONone grant, 2018 · $15k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Muleshoe Meals on Wheels purpose is to engage in all activities necessary, useful, or expedient, through operative measures and active organizations, to promote and further the interests of the Senior citizens of the area. The purpose…
Promotion of commerce in panola county texas
Provide meals on wheels, congregate meals, and recreational facility for elderly and low income persons of dawson county texas.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Envision Mineral Wells Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Max and Billie Clark Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 21 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds THE MAX AND BILLIE CLARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Mineral Wells Rotary Club ↗
- Who funds ENVISION MINERAL WELLS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE ↗
- Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY ↗
- Who funds Mineral Wells Area Chamber of Commerce ↗
- Who funds GRACE HOUSE MINISTRIES INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF MW DOG PARK ↗
- Who funds CROSS TIMBERS SENIOR CITIZENS SUPPORT TASK FORCE ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE CENTER FOR PALO PINTO ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Brazos Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.