Skip to content
Pak Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Pak Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$35k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$26k
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.

Human Services$239kRecreation & Sports$210kReligion$78kFood & Nutrition$72kHousing & Shelter$64kAnimals$43kYouth Development$34kHealth$12kOther$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $26k
$4,295
Median grant
1
States reached
$105k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO$25,900
TOM GREEN COUNTY 4H$4,295
TOM GREEN COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW$4,000
WALL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT$512
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%HEREDITARY NEUROPATHY FOUNDATION: $3k → 17%CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGC: $52k → 13%SETON HOME: $4k → 16%ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL: $3k → 16%WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $20k → 13%CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGC: $43k → 13%WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $10k → 13%CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGC: $42k → 13%WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $10k → 13%CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGC: $42k → 13%WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $10k → 13%CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGC: $40k → 13%WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $10k → 13%CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGC: $20k → 13%SAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO: $48k → 13%SAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO: $41k → 13%SAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO: $38k → 13%SAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO: $31k → 13%SAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO: $27k → 13%SAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO: $26k → 13%HOUSE OF FAITH: $20k → 13%MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY: $15k → 13%MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY: $15k → 13%MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY: $15k → 13%HOUSE OF FAITH: $11k → 13%MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY: $10k → 13%HOUSE OF FAITH: $10k → 13%HOUSE OF FAITH: $10k → 13%HOUSE OF FAITH: $10k → 13%HOUSE OF FAITH: $10k → 13%MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY: $8k → 13%MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY: $8k → 13%SAN ANGELO AREA FOUNDATION: $5k → 13%TOM GREEN COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK SHOW: $4k → 13%CASSIE'S PLACE: $5k → 13%CONCHO VALLEY PAWS: $15k → 13%CONCHO VALLEY PAWS: $10k → 13%PAULANN CHURCH: $7k → 13%TOM GREEN COUNTY 4H: $6k → 13%TOM GREEN COUNTY 4H: $5k → 13%TOM GREEN COUNTY 4H: $5k → 13%WALL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $5k → 13%CONCHO VALLEY PAWS: $5k → 13%CONCHO VALLEY PAWS: $5k → 13%TOM GREEN COUNTY 4H: $5k → 13%TOM GREEN COUNTY 4H: $5k → 13%TOM GREEN COUNTY 4H: $4k → 13%CONCHO VALLEY PAWS: $3k → 13%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$733k · 9 repeat orgs$26k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +71% since the first grant, against -25% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
7

Total granted

$733k
$22k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+71%
-25%

Still filing today

56%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k 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
AnimalsHealthPublic Safety & DisasterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • MF
    MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY INC
    6× · 2017–2022 · $71k · revenue +108%
  • WT
    WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH
    5× · 2019–2023 · $60k · revenue +113%
  • HS
    Humane Society of Tom Green County Concho Valley PAWS
    5× · 2017–2022 · $38k · revenue +71%

Funded once

  • PC
    PAULANN CHURCH
    one grant, 2017 · $7k
  • CP
    CASSIES PLACE
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue -17%
  • SH
    SETON HOME INC
    one grant, 2018 · $4k
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
Animal Welfare Society of Bandera County

Rescue and vet care for homeless dogs and cats

Animals
2
Helotes Humane Society

Rescue and place abandoned and unwanted pets. Provide low cost spay / neuter. Provide low-cost microchips. Provide community education.

Animals
3
Humane Society of San Antonio (Audit)

To protect and improve the lives of dogs and cats by providing shelter, care, adoption, rescue, spay & neuter programs and community education.

Animals
4
Texas Round Up Animal Alliance Inc

Adoption and shelter facility for unwanted, abandoned and neglected animals. provide aid to the community who need help with vetting or care of their animals.

Animals
5
Fix West Texas

Fix West Texas mission is to lower the local euthanasia rate dogs and cats put to sleep in our local shelter due to lack of space and to lower intakes number of dogs and cats taken in by the local shelter and local rescues in our West…

Animals
6
Schertz Humane Society

Adoption services for homeless pets

Philanthropy
7
Humane Society of Taos Inc dba Stray Hearts Animal Shelter

Stray Hearts is a socially conscious shelter and adoption facility reuniting lost pets with their families and providing humane care and shelter for surrendered, lost, and homeless companion animals in Taos County, New Mexico.Our pledge:…

Animals
8
Aggieland Humane Society

To provide humane shelter, care and placement for stray and unwanted animals, and to promote the human-animal bond and responsible pet ownership to enhance the quality of life for the people and animals in our community.

Animals
9
Central Texas Spca

Rescue neglected, unwanted homeless dogs and cats nurture and provide shelter until they are placed with a forever family strive to reduce animal overpopulation prevent cruelty to animals teach responsible pet ownership through an outreach…

Animals
10
Humane Society of Central Texas

As an advocate for the community goal of maintaining its no kill status, the humane society provides adoption, rescue and foster opportunities for the homeless animals at the city of waco animal shelter, as well as community education…

Animals
11
Throw a Dog a Bone Dog Rescue

Throw a Dog a Bone is an all-breed dog rescue located in Austin, TX. We focus on saving dogs primarily in the rural shelters in South Texas. Many of these shelters have no exposure and very few resources. Our mission is to rescue as many…

Animals
12
Humane Society of Angelina County Texas

Assist in adoption of animals, spay and neuter program, and present animal education programs through the city of lufkin and angelina county.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is San Angelo Area Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Wall Ag Boosters. 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 18 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)
3
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

CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGC: $239,479 · OtherCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF TGCSAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEO: $209,075 · OtherSAN ANGELO STOCK SHOW AND RODEOHOUSE OF FAITH: $71,000 · OtherHOUSE OF FAITHMEALS FOR THE ELDERLY INC: $70,500 · OtherMEALS FOR THE ELDERLY INCWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $60,000 · OtherWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCHTOM GREEN COUNTY 4H: $30,211 · Other+6 more: $19,900 · OtherHumane Society of Tom Green County Concho Valley PAWS: $38,000 · AnimalsCASSIES PLACE: $5,000 · AnimalsHEREDITARY NEUROPATHY FOUNDATION INC: $9,000 · HealthSAN ANGELO AREA FOUNDATION: $5,600 · PhilanthropyWall Volunteer Fire Department Inc: $5,512 · Public Safety & DisasterWall Ag Boosters: $1,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$700,165Animals$43,000Health$9,000Philanthropy$5,600Public Safety & Disaster$5,512Food & Nutrition$1,000

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 budgetMEALS FOR THE ELDERLY INC: $70,500 over 6y, 1.5% of budgetWEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH: $60,000 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetHumane Society of Tom Green County Concho Valley PAWS: $38,000 over 5y, 1.6% of budgetHEREDITARY NEUROPATHY FOUNDATION INC: $9,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetSAN ANGELO AREA FOUNDATION: $5,600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWall Volunteer Fire Department Inc: $5,512 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCASSIES PLACE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSAN ANGELO SYMPHONY SOCIETY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 MEALS FOR THE ELDERLY INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST TEXAS BOYS RANCH ↗
  • Who funds Humane Society of Tom Green County Concho Valley PAWS ↗
  • Who funds HEREDITARY NEUROPATHY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds SAN ANGELO AREA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Wall Volunteer Fire Department Inc ↗
  • Who funds CASSIES PLACE ↗
  • Who funds SAN ANGELO SYMPHONY SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Wall Ag Boosters ↗

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.

Art and Eva Camunez T…Mary Ellen Kent Bunya…San Angelo Health Fou…Stribling Funding Cor…Kickapoo Springs Foun…San Angelo Area Found…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Art and Eva Camunez Tucker FoundationTX17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Art and Eva Camunez Tucker Foundation · Mary Ellen Kent Bunyard Family Foundation · San Angelo Health Foundation · Stribling Funding Corporation · Kickapoo Springs Foundation · San Angelo Area Foundation · 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 Pak Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pak Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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 18 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 Pak’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