Skip to content
Brazos Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Brazos Foundation Inc

To financially support charitable organizations in palo pinto county, tx, and surrounding areas through fundraising and incom from investments

$76k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$18k
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.

Food & Nutrition$85kArts & Culture$64kHuman Services$53kEnvironment$53kEducation$40kRecreation & Sports$33kCommunity Improvement$25kHealth$20kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $56,650, the rows itemized in this filing. The $75,550 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $18,900 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $48k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$17,650
GRACE HOUSE$10,000
MINERAL WELLNESS CENTER INC$10,000
CHARLIES ANGELS SENIOR CTR$10,000
FRIENDS OF MW DOG PARK$9,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%CROSS TIMBERS SENIORS TASK FORCE: $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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$253k · 6 repeat orgs$166k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
10

Total granted

$253k
$110k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
+50%

Still filing today

83%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $57k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
ReligionPhilanthropyCommunity ImprovementFood & 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

  • TM
    THE MAX AND BILLIE CLARK FOUNDATION
    5× · 2018–2023 · $68k · revenue +13%
  • MW
    MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE
    2× · 2017–2021 · $20k · revenue +701%
  • MO
    MEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY
    2× · 2020–2022 · $18k · revenue +93%

Funded once

  • GI
    GORDON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
    one grant, 2022 · $20k
  • PP
    PALO PINTO HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2018 · $17k
  • TD
    THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF GORDON
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
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
Muleshoe Meals On Wheels Inc

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…

—
2
Mineola Senior Citizens Center Inc
Human Services
3
Friends of the Corsicana Public Library
Education
4
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Milam County
—
5
Maxwell Corpening Jr Memorial Foundation
—
6
Panola County Chamber of Commerce

Promotion of commerce in panola county texas

—
7
Caldwell County Dialysis Foundation
Health
8
The Clyde and Maycel Clark Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
9
Miller Oil Foundation
—
10
The Maxwellhanrahan Foundation
Philanthropy
11
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.

—
12
Minnie Miracle Foundation
Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Envision Mineral Wells Foundation Inc; 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.
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 21 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
5/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Mineral Wells Rotary Club: $67,300 · OtherMineral Wells Rotary ClubMINERAL WELLS WOMANS CLUB: $22,750 · OtherMINERAL WELLS WOMANS CLUBGORDON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: $20,000 · OtherGORDON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTIndividual grant recipient: $17,650 · OtherIndividual grant recipientPALO PINTO HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INC: $17,000 · OtherPALO PINTO HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INCTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF GORDON: $15,000 · OtherTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF GORDONMineral Wells Area Chamber of Commerce: $10,800 · OtherCITY OF STRAWN TEXAS: $10,675 · OtherTEXAS FRONTIER TRAILS INC: $10,000 · OtherPK MOBILE MEALS: $10,000 · OtherMINERAL WELLNESS CENTER INC: $10,000 · Other+2 more: $14,000 · Other+2 moreTHE MAX AND BILLIE CLARK FOUNDATION: $67,523 · PhilanthropyTHE MAX AND BILLIE…ENVISION MINERAL WELLS FOUNDATION INC: $57,500 · Community ImprovementENVISION MINERA…MINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $20,000 · ReligionGRACE HOUSE MINISTRIES INC: $10,000 · ReligionMEALS ON WHEELS OF PALO PINTO COUNTY: $17,600 · Food & NutritionFRIENDS OF MW DOG PARK: $9,000 · AnimalsCROSS TIMBERS SENIOR CITIZENS SUPPORT TASK FORCE: $6,765 · Human ServicesCHILDREN'S ALLIANCE CENTER FOR PALO PINTO: $5,508 · Youth Development
Other$225,175Philanthropy$67,523Community Improvement$57,500Religion$30,000Food & Nutrition$17,600Animals$9,000Human Services$6,765Youth Development$5,508

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 budgetTHE MAX AND BILLIE CLARK FOUNDATION: $67,523 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetENVISION MINERAL WELLS FOUNDATION INC: $57,500 over 4y, 12% of budgetMINERAL WELLS CENTER OF LIFE: $20,000 over 2y, 22% of budgetMineral Wells Area Chamber of Commerce: $10,800 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetGRACE HOUSE MINISTRIES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetFRIENDS OF MW DOG PARK: $9,000 over 1y, 37% of budgetCROSS TIMBERS SENIOR CITIZENS SUPPORT TASK FORCE: $6,765 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetCHILDREN'S ALLIANCE CENTER FOR PALO PINTO: $5,508 over 1y, 1.6% 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 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 ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA0.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Brazos Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Brazos Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’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 21 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $123k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Brazos’ 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