Skip to content

· Private foundation

Broughton Foundation Trust

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$3.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
22
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$890k
Largest
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$8.6MPublic Safety & Disaster$1.4MCrime & Legal$1.1MYouth Development$876kHuman Services$670kCivil Rights$650kHousing & Shelter$535kCommunity Improvement$397kOther$0
02FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $80k
  • $50k–250k11 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+6 grants · $2.7M
$100,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$92M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Howard County Volunteer Fire Dept$890,000
YMCA Teen Center$500,000
Children's Medical Center$500,000
UMC Foundation$300,000
Cook Children's Health Foundation$250,000
Martin County Hospital District$250,000
West Texas Rehabilitation Center$125,000
Westside Community Daycare Center$120,000
West Texas Counseling Guidance Cent$110,000
Individual grant recipient$110,000
Rape Crisis Services of Big Spring$100,000
CASA of West Texas$100,000
Children's Advocacy Center$100,000
West Texas Boys Ranch$100,000
Howard County Youth Horsman Club$98,319
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 (FY20–24, $440k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%WESTSIDE COMMUNITY DAYCARE CENTER: $120k → 17%WESTSIDE COMMUNITY DAYCARE CENTER: $60k → 17%Westside Community Daycare Center: $120k → 17%Westside Community Daycare Center: $110k → 17%Westside Community Daycare Center: $30k → 17%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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$11M · 24 repeat orgs$5.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +30% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

24 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
22

Total granted

$11M
$4.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%
+10%

Still filing today

46%
9%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M 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
HealthArts & CulturePublic Safety & DisasterHousing & ShelterCivil RightsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • UF
    UMC FOUNDATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +30%
  • HC
    HOWARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
    2× · 2022–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +91% · 36% of their budget
  • TW
    The West Texas Rehabilitation Center
    3× · 2017–2024 · $725k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • US
    UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2018 · $1.0M
  • DR
    DORA ROBERST REHAB CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $522k
  • CM
    CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIO
    one grant, 2021 · $390k
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
Central Texas Children's Home

To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.

Human Services
2
West Texas Hero Homes Inc

Support of special needs military or first responders and their families.

Housing & Shelter
3
Texas Foster Care & Adoption Serv

A state of texas licensed foster care and adoption agency that identifies and provides approved healing foster homes for children.

Human Services
4
Food Bank of West Central Texas

To procure and distribute nutritional food to qualified agencies that feed the hungry of West Central Texas.

Food & Nutrition
5
Sunny Glen Children's Home Inc

Sunny Glen Childrens Home, Inc. cares for children in need. Our care will be competent, compassionate and professional. We will help every child achieve their greatest potential-physically, emotionally, spiritually and academically.

Human Services
6
Westcare Texas Inc

To provide substance abuse prevention & treatment.

Human Services
7
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Hidalgo Count

To provide services for the protection of abused and neglected children that are in the custody of the State of Texas.

Civil Rights
8
West Central Texas Workforce Development Board Inc

To support and compliment the work of Workforce Solutions of West Central Texas Board, which is responsible for the planning, oversight, and evaluation of a consolidated workforce system for the 19 County West Central Texas region.

Employment
9
Comal County Child Welfare Board

Provide support to foster children and at risk families in Comal County Texas. Provide emergency support to victims of child abuse.

—
10
Lone Star Casa Inc

Lone Star CASA elevates the voices of children in Kaufman and Rockwall County who have experienced abuse and neglect by providing trained volunteer advocates to work alongside children and families so they can achieve safety and stability…

Civil Rights
11
Big Horn County Memorial Hospital Auxiliary
Health
12
West Texas Boys Ranch Foundation

The west texas boys ranch foundation raises, collects, accumulates, manages, and distributes the funds necessary for the west texas boys ranch, a related 501(c)(3) organization.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Casa of West Texas; the most unlike its peers is Heritage Museum of Big Spring. 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

15 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. 15 of the 53 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
11/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Children's Medical Center: $1,300,000 · OtherChildren's Medical CenterMARTIN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT: $1,000,000 · OtherMARTIN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICTUT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER: $1,000,000 · OtherUT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTERJOE ARRINGTON CANCER CENTER: $750,000 · OtherJOE ARRINGTON CANCER CENTERDORA ROBERST REHAB CENTER: $522,051 · OtherYMCA Teen Center: $500,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATIO: $390,000 · Other+35 more: $5,069,184 · Other+35 moreUMC FOUNDATION: $1,200,000 · HealthUMC FOUNDATIONThe West Texas Rehabilitation Center: $725,000 · HealthThe West Texas Reha…Memorial Hermann Foundation: $650,000 · HealthMemorial Hermann Fo…RAPE CRISIS SERVICES OF BIG SPRING: $100,000 · HealthHOWARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $1,140,000 · Public Safety & DisasterCASA OF WEST TEXAS: $650,000 · Civil RightsWESTSIDE COMMUNITY DAYCARE CENTER INC: $440,000 · Human ServicesPARTNERS IN OPPORTUNITY INC: $300,000 · Housing & ShelterHERITAGE MUSEUM OF BIG SPRING: $75,000 · Arts & CultureBIG SPRING SYMPHONY ASSOCIATION: $35,000 · Arts & CultureARCHWAY OUTREACH INC: $25,000 · Philanthropy
Other$10,531,235Health$2,675,000Public Safety & Disaster$1,140,000Civil Rights$650,000Human Services$440,000Housing & Shelter$300,000Arts & Culture$110,000Philanthropy$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUMC FOUNDATION: $1,200,000 over 4y, 5.6% of budgetHOWARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $1,140,000 over 2y, 36% of budgetThe West Texas Rehabilitation Center: $725,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCASA OF WEST TEXAS: $650,000 over 6y, 7.9% of budgetMemorial Hermann Foundation: $650,000 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetWESTSIDE COMMUNITY DAYCARE CENTER INC: $440,000 over 5y, 40% of budgetPARTNERS IN OPPORTUNITY INC: $300,000 over 2y, 45% of budgetWEST TEXAS FOOD BANK: $225,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetRAPE CRISIS SERVICES OF BIG SPRING: $100,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $100,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetCONCHO VALLEY HOME FOR GIRLS INC: $85,000 over 4y, 8.7% of budgetHERITAGE MUSEUM OF BIG SPRING: $75,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetNEW HORIZONS RANCH & CENTER INC: $70,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetARCHWAY OUTREACH INC: $25,000 over 1y, 14% 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 UMC FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds HOWARD COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT ↗
  • Who funds The West Texas Rehabilitation Center ↗
  • Who funds CASA OF WEST TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds Memorial Hermann Foundation ↗
  • Who funds WESTSIDE COMMUNITY DAYCARE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PARTNERS IN OPPORTUNITY INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST TEXAS FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds RAPE CRISIS SERVICES OF BIG SPRING ↗
  • Who funds WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH ↗
  • Who funds CONCHO VALLEY HOME FOR GIRLS INC ↗
  • Who funds HERITAGE MUSEUM OF BIG SPRING ↗
  • Who funds NEW HORIZONS RANCH & CENTER INC ↗

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.

Dora Roberts Foundation - Fi Xxxxx4008IL15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Dora Roberts Foundation - Fi Xxxxx4008 · Fmh Foundation · Permian Basin Area Foundation · Big Spring Area Community Foundation Inc · San Angelo Health Foundation · Wayne & Jo Ann Moore Charitable Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Broughton Foundation Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Broughton Foundation Trust. 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
    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 · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Broughton Foundation Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Broughton Foundation Trust through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 53 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Broughton’s filings →

    More from the funding graph