Skip to content

· Public charity

Hands to Hands Community Fund

The mission is to provide funding for agencies who feed the elderly, watch over neglected and abused children, care for children and adults with developmental disabilities, provide shelter for children living in harm's way, and help grow and develop tomorrow's community leaders.

$533k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$73k
Largest
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.

Youth Development$1.9MHuman Services$998kCivil Rights$580kHealth$548k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$68,136
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILD ADVOCATES CASA$73,308
THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC$71,448
CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS$70,128
CAMP FIRE NORTH TEXAS$68,136
THE GENESIS PLACE-STRAIGHT ST$67,080
BURKBURNETT BOYS & GIRLS CLUB$62,400
FRIENDLY DOOR INC$61,671
BOYS SCOUTS OF AMERICA$59,052
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 (FY17–24, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $82k → 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $73k → 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $72k → 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $70k → 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $68k → 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $64k → 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $60k → 16%CHILDRENS AID SOC WTEXAS: $59k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $75k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $73k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $73k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $71k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $71k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $66k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $62k → 16%THE ARC OF WICHITA CO INC: $57k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.0M · 8 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
0

Total granted

$4.0M
$0

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentCivil RightsOther
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

  • CA
    Child Advocates CASA of Red River
    8× · 2017–2024 · $580k · revenue +76%
  • TA
    THE ARC OF WICHITA COUNTY INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $548k · revenue +75%
  • CA
    CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF WEST TX INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $547k · revenue +43%

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
    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
    2
    Court Appointed Special Advocates of Milam County
    —
    3
    Special Abilities of North Texas Inc

    To provide the highest quality care, training and support to adults with special needs, giving them opportunities to succeed in life.

    Human Services
    4
    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
    5
    Court Appointed Special Advocates Casa of Liberty/Chambers Counties

    None

    Human Services
    6
    Bluebonnet Childrens Center

    To protect and enhance the quality of life for abused and neglected children in Medina, Real and Uvalde Counties of Texas.

    Crime & Legal
    7
    Achievement Center of Texas Inc

    Provide day care, day habilitation (life skills training), arts exploration, educational assistance and community inclusion for children and young adults with special needs.

    Human Services
    8
    Casa for Kids of South Central Texas Inc

    To recruit, train and supervise volunteers that advocate in the best interests of abused and neglected children in court.

    Housing & Shelter
    9
    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
    10
    Texas Elks Children's Services Inc

    The organization provides services to children with special needs.

    Health
    11
    Boys Club of Brazos County Inc

    Service to youth

    Youth Development
    12
    Boys & Girls Club of Navarro County
    —
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Camp Fire North Texas; the most unlike its peers is The Genesis Place Inc. 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

    8 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.

    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)
    8/8
    Grantees still filing
    6/8
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    THE ARC OF WICHITA COUNTY INC: $547,880 · Human ServicesTHE ARC OF WICHITA COUNTY INCCHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF WEST TX INC: $547,495 · Human ServicesCHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF WEST TX INCTHE GENESIS PLACE INC: $483,969 · Human ServicesTHE GENESIS PLACE INCCAMP FIRE NORTH TEXAS: $517,391 · Youth DevelopmentCAMP FIRE NORTH TEXASBOYS CLUB OF BURKBURNETT BURKBURNETT BOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $458,360 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS CLUB OF BURKBURNETT BU…FRIENDLY DOOR INC: $450,268 · OtherFRIENDLY DOOR INCNorthwest Texas Council of Boy Scouts of America: $447,845 · OtherNorthwest Texas Council o…Child Advocates CASA of Red River: $579,890 · Civil RightsChild Advocates …
    Human Services$1,579,344Youth Development$975,751Other$898,113Civil Rights$579,890

    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 budgetChild Advocates CASA of Red River: $579,890 over 8y, 12% of budgetTHE ARC OF WICHITA COUNTY INC: $547,880 over 8y, 16% of budgetCHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF WEST TX INC: $547,495 over 8y, 5.8% of budgetCAMP FIRE NORTH TEXAS: $517,391 over 8y, 12% of budgetTHE GENESIS PLACE INC: $483,969 over 8y, 25% of budgetBOYS CLUB OF BURKBURNETT BURKBURNETT BOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $458,360 over 8y, 11% of budgetFRIENDLY DOOR INC: $450,268 over 8y, 19% of budgetNorthwest Texas Council of Boy Scouts of America: $447,845 over 8y, 8.6% 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 Child Advocates CASA of Red River ↗
    • Who funds THE ARC OF WICHITA COUNTY INC ↗
    • Who funds CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF WEST TX INC ↗
    • Who funds CAMP FIRE NORTH TEXAS ↗
    • Who funds THE GENESIS PLACE INC ↗
    • Who funds BOYS CLUB OF BURKBURNETT BURKBURNETT BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
    • Who funds FRIENDLY DOOR INC ↗
    • Who funds Northwest Texas Council of Boy Scouts of America ↗

    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.

    Wichita Falls Area Community FoundationTX22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Wichita Falls Area Community Foundation · James N McCoy Foundation · The Priddy Foundation · Gene Conley Foundation · 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 Hands to Hands Community Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hands to Hands Community Fund. 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
      2report 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.

      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 8 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.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Hands to Hands’ filings →

      More from the funding graph