Skip to content
Epd Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Epd Inc

Employment of the disabled

$169k
Granted FY2023
10
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2023.

Human Services$100kHealth$85kPhilanthropy$54kFood & Nutrition$39kEducation$25k
02FY2023 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$20,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$29M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE GUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION$25,000
TRUE TO LIFE MINISTRIES$20,000
THE SALVATION ARMY$20,000
REFUGE FOR WOMEN$20,000
PREGNANCY HELP CENTER$20,000
BRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION$15,000
BRAZOSPORT CARES$12,000
UNITED WAY OF BRAZORIA COUNTY$12,000
THE FOOD BASKET$12,000
UNITED WAY OF MORGAN COUNTY$12,000
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 (FY22–23, $75k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%THE GUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION: $25k → 10%THE GUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION: $20k → 10%TRUE TO LIFE MINISTRIES: $20k → 10%TRUE TO LIFE MINISTRIES: $10k → 10%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$303k · 10 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
0

Total granted

$303k
$0

Still filing today

90%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’22’23
Human ServicesPhilanthropyFood & NutritionHealthHousing & ShelterEducationOther
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

  • GC
    GUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $45k · revenue +76%
  • PH
    Pregnancy Help Center of Brazosport
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +20%
  • TT
    TRUE TO LIFE MINISTRIES INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $30k · revenue +18%

Funded once

    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
    United Way of Comal County

    To engage the community and focus resources for those in need in comal county

    Philanthropy
    2
    Womens Center of Brazoria County Inc

    Comprehensive service to domestic violence and sexual assault victims

    Human Services
    3
    Bastrop County Emergency Food Pantry

    The mission of the Bastrop County Emergency Food Pantry and Support Center is to serve Bastrop County residents going through periods of transition by providing emergency food assistance, education and support.

    —
    4
    Brazoria County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

    Promote hispanic business in brazoria county, texas by increasing opportunities, networking and providing access to resources.

    Community Improvement
    5
    West Texas Food Bank

    The WTFB exists to collect, purchase, and distribute food to feed the hungry in 19 counties in West Texas in partnership with volunteers and community organizations and to educate these partners and the public at large about the real face…

    —
    6
    Brazos Foundation Inc

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

    —
    7
    Butte Emergency Food Bank

    Provide food for individuals in need

    —
    8
    Family Promise of Bryan-College Station

    To assist homeless families in securing stable housing

    Housing & Shelter
    9
    Community Foundation of Brazoria County

    The charitable purpose of the community foundation of brazoria county cfbc is to build permanent funds for the benefit of the community, to respond to change needs through effective grantmaking and to encourage philanthropy.

    Philanthropy
    10
    Inter-Faith Food Shuttle

    To feed our neighbors, teach self- sufficiency and grow healthy foods through innovative, collaborative approaches to ending hunger.

    Human Services
    11
    Brazos Church Pantry Inc

    Collection of food to provide to needy people in brazos, county, texas

    —
    12
    Barry County United Way

    None

    Philanthropy
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Brazosport Cares; the most unlike its peers is Pregnancy Help Center of Brazosport. 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 10 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)
    9/9
    Grantees still filing
    4/9
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    GUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION: $45,000 · Human ServicesGUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATIONTRUE TO LIFE MINISTRIES INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesTRUE TO LIFE MINISTRIES INCUNITED WAY OF MORGAN COUNTY: $29,500 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF MORGAN…United Way of Brazoria County: $24,000 · PhilanthropyUnited Way of Brazor…Pregnancy Help Center of Brazosport: $40,000 · HealthPregnancy Help…REFUGE FOR WOMEN INC: $40,000 · Housing & ShelterREFUGE FOR WOM…INTERFAITH FOOD BANK INC: $19,500 · Food & NutritionINTERFAITH FOO…BRAZOSPORT CARES: $19,500 · Food & NutritionBRAZOSPORT CAR…SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORP: $30,000 · OtherSALVATION A…BRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $25,000 · EducationBRAZOSPOR…
    Human Services$75,000Philanthropy$53,500Health$40,000Housing & Shelter$40,000Food & Nutrition$39,000Other$30,000Education$25,000

    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 budgetGUERRERO CRYSTAL FOUNDATION: $45,000 over 2y, 24% of budgetPregnancy Help Center of Brazosport: $40,000 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetREFUGE FOR WOMEN INC: $40,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTRUE TO LIFE MINISTRIES INC: $30,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetUNITED WAY OF MORGAN COUNTY: $29,500 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetBRAZOSPORT COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetUnited Way of Brazoria County: $24,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetINTERFAITH FOOD BANK INC: $19,500 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetBRAZOSPORT CARES: $19,500 over 2y, 0.6% 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.

    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.

    Dow Company FoundationTdecu Cares Foundatio…Community Foundation …Greater Houston Commu…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
    Dow Company FoundationMI15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Dow Company Foundation · Tdecu Cares Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of Brazoria County · Greater Houston Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Epd Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Epd Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%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.
      05Through Plinth

      Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

      How do I get to Epd Inc?

      Find your warmest path to Epd Inc 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 10 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $5k 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 FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Epd’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