Skip to content

Texas · Private foundation

H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$79k
Granted FY2025(still arriving)
22
Grants FY2025
21
Organizations funded FY2024
5%
First-time grantees FY2024
Read the full brief
Median grant, FY2025
$5,000
Largest grant, FY2025
$5,000
Organizations funded a year
15 to 23
FY2018 to FY2024
States reached, FY2025
1
Total assets, FY2025
$873k
Applications
Takes unsolicited applications
Per its most recent filing; check its own site

How open it is to new grantees

In FY2024, 5% of the organizations H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 funded were first-time grantees, receiving 3% of its grant dollars.

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsEducationRecreation & SportsArts & CultureOther
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.
The numbers by year
Fiscal yearOrganizations fundedTo those organizationsFirst-time grantees
FY2025still arriving22$79k5%
FY202421$78k5%
FY202323$77k9%
FY202221$74k14%
FY202120$71k25%
FY202018$68k6%
FY201918$68k11%
FY201815$63k7%
93% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$196kReligion$105kArts & Culture$88kHuman Services$73kFood & Nutrition$50kHealth$45kYouth Development$43kCrime & Legal$13kOther$0

Top grantees

Largest recipients by total granted, FY2017 to FY2025, and the share of each one’s budget the grants supplied at peak.

Plus 25 recipients with no EIN on record ($389k), not named here.

Where it is load-bearing

H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 supplied at least a quarter of the budget for 1 of its grantees at some point. The chart plots its 9 largest grantees; load-bearing ones sit top left.

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMission Marshall Inc: $45,000 over 9y, 1.6% of budgetMichelson Museum of Art: $45,000 over 9y, 2.5% of budgetMarshall Education Foundation Inc: $45,000 over 9y, 6.7% of budgetMarshall Regional Arts Council: $20,500 over 8y, 7.9% of budgetTwelve-Way Foundation Inc: $20,000 over 4y, 2.4% of budgetCasa of Grayson County Inc: $12,500 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetCason Westmoreland Foundation: $11,500 over 4y, 34% of budgetWindridge Therapeutic Equestrian Center of East Texas Inc: $7,000 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetMarshall Depot Inc: $5,000 over 5y, 2.3% of budget

Tap a dot to name the grantee.

How this is measured
Share of budget is the funder’s grant in a year over the grantee’s total revenue that year, at its highest across the years we hold; revenue is from all sources. Only grantees confirmed against their own filings, whose grants do not exceed their revenue, are plotted: the largest 9.

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.

The Turney FoundationTX15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Turney Foundation · Richard M and Christina Cocek Anderson Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · 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.

Compare H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 with peer funders

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2?

Find your warmest path to H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 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.

About H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2

How much does H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 give?
H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 reported 22 grants totaling $78,500 in its FY2025 IRS filing. It funded between 15 and 23 organizations a year over FY2018 to FY2024.
What does H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 fund?
By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2025, its largest causes are Education (30%), Religion (16%), Arts & Culture (14%).
Who are H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2's largest grantees?
By total granted over FY2017 to FY2025: Mission Marshall Inc ($45k), Michelson Museum of Art ($45k), Marshall Education Foundation Inc ($45k).
Does H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 fund new organizations?
In FY2024, 5% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.
Does H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 accept unsolicited applications?
Its most recent filing reports that it accepts unsolicited grant applications.
Which funders back the same organizations as H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2?
Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include The Turney Foundation, Richard M and Christina Cocek Anderson Foundation, Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc.
Where is H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 based?
H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2 is based in TX.

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 35 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on H E and Ruby Pelz Tr 2’s filings →

More from the funding graph