Skip to content

· Private foundation

Virginia & Christian Groneman Charitable

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$49k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$200kPublic Safety & Disaster$64kReligion$53kHuman Services$45kPhilanthropy$41kFood & Nutrition$25kCrime & Legal$13kHousing & Shelter$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $44k
$11,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$917k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BRAZOS VALLEY REHABILITATION CENTER INC$11,000
ST JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER$11,000
METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES$11,000
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS$11,000
UNITED WAY OF THE BRAZOS VALLEY INC$5,000
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 (FY17–25, $39k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS: $15k → 14%AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS: $11k → 14%HOSPICE BRAZOS VALLEY: $5k → 22%HOSPICE BRAZOS VALLEY: $3k → 22%HOSICE BRAZOS VALLEY: $2k → 22%HOSPICE BRAZOS VALLEY: $2k → 22%VOICES FOR CHILDREN: $500 → 22%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$497k · 18 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

18 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
4

Total granted

$497k
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+4%
+17%

Still filing today

61%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
HealthHuman ServicesPhilanthropyHousing & ShelterReligionFood & 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

  • SJ
    ST JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER
    5× · 2021–2025 · $103k · revenue +2%
  • UW
    United Way of the Brazos Valley
    9× · 2017–2025 · $29k · revenue +4%
  • AN
    American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches
    2× · 2023–2025 · $26k · revenue +22%

Funded once

  • BC
    Boys Club of Brazos County Inc
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +19%
  • SH
    SCOTTY'S HOUSE
    one grant, 2022 · $3k
  • RM
    RONALD McDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF GREATER NORTH TEXAS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $3k · revenue +17%
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
Brazos Valley Council on Alcohol and Substance Abuse

To provide guidance and support for persons affected by alcohol and substance abuse.

Health
2
Womens Center of Brazoria County Inc

Comprehensive service to domestic violence and sexual assault victims

Human Services
3
Brazos Maternal and Child Health Clinic

To provide community-centered prenatal care and health education to medically indigent pregnant women in the Brazos Valley. Comprehensive, accessible and affordable prenatal care and health education are the best ways to improve pregnancy…

Health
4
Brazos Valley Affordable Housing Corporation

To provide quality services and products to the residents and businesses of our community in such a way as to maximize the affordability of safe and decent housing, especially for the low income; and to serve as a vehicle and assist in any…

Community Improvement
5
Scottys House Brazos Valley Child Advocacy Center Inc

The mission of Scottys House is to provide safety, healing and justice for children victimized by abuse through professional assessment, counseling and education in a compassionate and collaborative approach.

Health
6
United Way of Brazoria County

To educate, unite and focus our community's resources in order to efficiently address the most critical needs of Brazoria County

Philanthropy
7
Brazos Employment Enterprises Dba the Bee Community

To provide community, life-long learning, and meaningful work for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

—
8
Brazos Valley Cdc Inc

To provide quality services and products to the residents and businesses of our communities in such a way as to maximize the affordability of safe and decent housing, especially for the low income; and to serve as a vehicle and assist in…

Housing & Shelter
9
Brazoria County Dream Center Inc

The Brazoria County Dream Center BCDC provides avenues of healing to the souls of hurting humanity in Brazoria County, TX. We address both the physical and emotional needs of the community. We accomplish this by focusing on rebuilding…

Human Services
10
OnRamp Inc

Provide reliable transportation to people in need.

Human Services
11
Bridge Ministries of Bryan Texas

To share Christ with others through serving those in need in the brazos valley and surrounding areas or wherever God leads and to bridge the gap by joining churches and other groups in serving together.

Religion
12
Behavioral Health Solutions of South Texas

To develop and implement effective age-appropriate, consumer-driven, evidence-based services to prevent and reduce substance use and strengthen mental wellness across the southernmost Texas communities.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hospice Brazos Valley Inc; the most unlike its peers is Ronald McDONALD House Charities of Greater North Texas 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

14 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. 14 of the 22 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)
14/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER: $102,900 · HealthST JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTERTEMPLE MEMORIAL PEDIATRIC CENTER INC: $32,000 · HealthTEMPLE MEMORIAL PEDIATRIC CENTER INCHealth for All Inc: $31,500 · HealthHealth for All IncBRAZOS VALLEY REHABILITATION CENTER: $23,900 · HealthBRAZOS VALLEY REHABILITATION CENTERBrazos County Rape Crisis Center Inc: $12,500 · HealthBrazos County Rape Crisis Center IncA & M UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $52,900 · OtherA & M UNITED METHODIST CHURCHIndividual grant recipient: $44,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMETHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES: $32,900 · OtherMETHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIESAMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS: $21,900 · OtherAMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSSRED CROSS: $16,000 · OtherRED CROSSSALVATION ARMY BCS: $10,000 · OtherST JOSEPH FOUNDATION: $9,500 · Other+1 more: $2,500 · OtherAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $26,000 · Human ServicesHospice Brazos Valley Inc: $12,000 · Human Services+1 more: $500 · Human ServicesUnited Way of the Brazos Valley: $29,000 · PhilanthropyRONALD McDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF GREATER NORTH TEXAS INC: $2,500 · PhilanthropyBRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK INC: $24,500 · Food & NutritionThe Reach Project: $10,000 · Housing & ShelterS O S Ministries INC: $5,500 · ReligionBoys Club of Brazos County Inc: $5,000 · Youth Development
Health$202,800Other$189,700Human Services$38,500Philanthropy$31,500Food & Nutrition$24,500Housing & Shelter$10,000Religion$5,500Youth Development$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetST JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER: $102,900 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetTEMPLE MEMORIAL PEDIATRIC CENTER INC: $32,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetHealth for All Inc: $31,500 over 6y, 1.6% of budgetUnited Way of the Brazos Valley: $29,000 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $26,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK INC: $24,500 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetBRAZOS VALLEY REHABILITATION CENTER: $23,900 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetBrazos County Rape Crisis Center Inc: $12,500 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetHospice Brazos Valley Inc: $12,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetThe Reach Project: $10,000 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetS O S Ministries INC: $5,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBoys Club of Brazos County Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetVoices for Children Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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 ST JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER ↗
  • Who funds TEMPLE MEMORIAL PEDIATRIC CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Health for All Inc ↗
  • Who funds United Way of the Brazos Valley ↗
  • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
  • Who funds BRAZOS VALLEY FOOD BANK INC ↗
  • Who funds BRAZOS VALLEY REHABILITATION CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Brazos County Rape Crisis Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds Hospice Brazos Valley Inc ↗
  • Who funds The Reach Project ↗
  • Who funds S O S Ministries INC ↗
  • Who funds Boys Club of Brazos County Inc ↗
  • Who funds RONALD McDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF GREATER NORTH TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds Voices for Children Inc ↗

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.

Orr Waldon H and Adele Charitable TrustMO30.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Orr Waldon H and Adele Charitable Trust · Lucille and John B Dougherty Trust · Winkler Nina Astin Trust · Edge Eugene III Charitable Trust · Gilbert & Thyra Plass Charitable Trust · Nina Heard Astin Charitable Trust · Marshall and Ellen Peters Family Foundation · M Bookman Peters Charitable Foundation · United Way of the Brazos Valley · Clifton C & Henrietta C Doak Charitable · Mervin and Annete Peters Family Foundation · Tyrous R & Ruth F Williams Charitable Tr

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 Virginia & Christian Groneman Charitable funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Virginia & Christian Groneman Charitable. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 22 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 Virginia & Christian Groneman’s filings →

    More from the funding graph