Skip to content
St Joseph's Community Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Community foundation

St Joseph's Community Foundation

The mission of the organization is to perpetuate the mission of the sisters of charity of the incarnate word and their 92-year tradition of improving the availability and effectiveness of medical care in the red river valley with a special emphasis on persons who are underserved or in financial need.this is accomplished by providing…

$153k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
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 2025.

Education$513kHealth$177kCrime & Legal$80kHousing & Shelter$68kHuman Services$43kFood & Nutrition$40kPhilanthropy$38kPublic Benefit$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $77,100, the rows itemized in this filing. The $152,528 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $75,428 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $38k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $40k
$8,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PARIS JUNIOR COLLEGE$25,500
PARIS LAMAR COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT$14,000
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF PARIS$9,850
UNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY$8,000
THE FRIENDS OF FORT TOWSON INC$7,500
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ARLINGTON$6,500
SALVATION ARMY$5,750
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 (FY17–20, $80k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 18%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 18%PARIS-LAMAR CO HEALTH DISTRICT: $40k → 15%PARIS-LAMAR CO HEALTH DISTRIC: $14k → 15%PARIS-LAMAR CO HEALTH DISTRIC: $10k → 15%PARIS-LAMAR CO HEALTH DISTRIC: $10k → 15%PARIS-LAMAR CO HEALTH DISTRIC: $6k → 15%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$911k · 15 repeat orgs$66k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +70% since the first grant, against +16% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
7

Total granted

$911k
$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
+16%

Still filing today

53%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesPublic BenefitHousing & ShelterCrime & LegalHealthEducationOther
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

  • TR
    TEXAS RAMP PROJECT
    7× · 2018–2024 · $68k · revenue +144%
  • TC
    THE CHILDRENS CENTER INC DBA CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF PARIS
    3× · 2018–2020 · $31k · revenue +70%
  • TR
    TAILORED RIDES EQUINE ASSISTED THERAPY INC
    4× · 2020–2024 · $24k · revenue +94%

Funded once

  • AC
    ARK-TEX COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +57%
  • LU
    Lamar University
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • S
    SAFE-T
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
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
The Arc of North Texas

To support and empower people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to improve their quality of life.

—
2
Ark-La-Tex Agricultural Council

To promote and encourage agriculture production by educating youth and sponsoring exhibitions of livestock and farm products.

—
3
Developmental Services of Dickson County

To provide support and services for persons with disabilities to enable them to become active members of the community.

Human Services
4
Boys and Girls Club of Laredo Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas

To provide a place for children to go where they will have supervised activities, arts, crafts, and recreation.

Youth Development
6
Raise Texas

RAISE Texas advances equitable policies and programs that foster financial security and economic mobility for low- and moderate-income Texans. We equip, innovate and advocate to reduce disparities, remove barriers and build opportunities…

Human Services
7
Texas Legal Services Center Inc

Texas Legal Services Center is a nonprofit legal aid organization whose mission is to serve the undeserved by making civil justice accessible to every Texan--no matter their ability to earn. We're a coalition of attorneys, paralegals, pro…

Crime & Legal
8
Rockwall County Helping Hands Inc

To alleviate financial crisis and provide a medical home to the underserved. Strive to ensure that no one in Rockwall County goes to bed hungry, or without a roof overhead, or is deprived of needed medical care.

Human Services
9
Texas Gun Sense

Texas Gun Sense is a statewide nonprofit and nonpartisan organization advocating to prevent gun violence and other gun tragedies in Texas through education, partnerships, and policy change.

Civil Rights
10
The Arc of Harris County

To promote wellness, enriching the lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.

—
11
The Arc of Union Cabarrus Inc

To enhance the lives of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

—
12
Castle Care Community Ministries

Our mission is to end Veteran homelessness in Texas and throughout America by providing shelter, transitional living, counseling, case management, job training and job placement.

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Childrens Center Inc Dba Childrens Advocacy Center of Paris; the most unlike its peers is Friends of Fort Towson 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

12 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. 12 of the 23 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PARIS JUNIOR COLLEGE: $410,400 · OtherPARIS JUNIOR COLLEGECHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF PARIS: $49,850 · OtherCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF PARISUNIV OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON: $39,000 · OtherUNIV OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTONPARIS LAMAR COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT: $28,000 · OtherTEXAS WOMANS UNIVERSITY: $24,000 · OtherKING'S DAUGHTERS AND KING'S SONS - FIRST CIRCLE: $22,500 · Other+10 more: $92,857 · Other+10 moreHUMAN RESOURCES COUNCIL INC: $80,000 · Human ServicesHUMAN RESOURCES…CITYSQUARE: $50,000 · Human ServicesCITYSQUARETEXAS RAMP PROJECT: $67,906 · Housing & ShelterUNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY: $38,000 · PhilanthropyTHE CHILDRENS CENTER INC DBA CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF PARIS: $30,500 · Crime & LegalTAILORED RIDES EQUINE ASSISTED THERAPY INC: $23,500 · AnimalsRed River Valley Down Syndrome Society: $20,195 · Health
Other$666,607Human Services$130,000Housing & Shelter$67,906Philanthropy$38,000Crime & Legal$30,500Animals$23,500Health$20,195

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHUMAN RESOURCES COUNCIL INC: $80,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetTEXAS RAMP PROJECT: $67,906 over 7y, 0.8% of budgetCITYSQUARE: $50,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY: $38,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetTHE CHILDRENS CENTER INC DBA CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF PARIS: $30,500 over 3y, 3.3% of budgetTAILORED RIDES EQUINE ASSISTED THERAPY INC: $23,500 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetKING'S DAUGHTERS AND KING'S SONS - FIRST CIRCLE: $22,500 over 3y, 3.8% of budgetRed River Valley Down Syndrome Society: $20,195 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetARK-TEX COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFriends of Fort Towson Inc: $7,500 over 1y, 72% of budgetHARDIN-SIMMONS UNIVERSITY: $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of the Red River Valle y: $6,569 over 1y, 0.9% 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 HUMAN RESOURCES COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS RAMP PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds CITYSQUARE ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF LAMAR COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds THE CHILDRENS CENTER INC DBA CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF PARIS ↗
  • Who funds TAILORED RIDES EQUINE ASSISTED THERAPY INC ↗
  • Who funds KING'S DAUGHTERS AND KING'S SONS - FIRST CIRCLE ↗
  • Who funds Red River Valley Down Syndrome Society ↗
  • Who funds ARK-TEX COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ↗
  • Who funds Friends of Fort Towson Inc ↗
  • Who funds HARDIN-SIMMONS UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Club of the Red River Valle y ↗

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.

Ram FoundationUnited Way of Lamar C…Greater Houston Commu…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Ram FoundationTX20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ram Foundation · United Way of Lamar County · Greater Houston Community 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 St Joseph's Community Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from St Joseph's Community Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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
    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 23 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on St Joseph'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