Skip to content
Datcu at a glance

· Public charity

Datcu

DATCU's mission is to provide our membership with a wide array of competitively priced and efficiently delivered services to meet their financial needs.

$249k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$56k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$954kHealth$88kPhilanthropy$66kArts & Culture$50kCivil Rights$23kCrime & Legal$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $159,060, the rows itemized in this filing. The $249,426 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $90,366 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

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $52k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $107k
$51,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.7B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILDREN'S ADOVACY CENTER$55,800
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS$51,000
UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY$42,260
COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOL OF NORTH TEXAS$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 5%CHILDREN'S ADOVACY CENTER: $56k → 8%CHILDREN'S ADOVACY CENTER: $15k → 8%CHILDREN'S ADOVACY CENTER: $15k → 8%CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $5k → 8%SERVE DENTON: $10k → 8%SERVE DENTON: $10k → 8%SERVE DENTON: $10k → 8%SERVE DENTON: $9k → 8%CASA OF DENTON COUNTY: $8k → 8%COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF DENTON COUNTY INC: $8k → 8%CASA OF DENTON COUNTY: $8k → 8%CASA OF DENTON COUNTY: $8k → 8%SERVE DENTON: $5k → 8%HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS: $13k → 8%HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS: $10k → 8%HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS: $10k → 8%HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS: $10k → 8%HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS: $5k → 8%HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS: $5k → 8%HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS: $5k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $500k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $52k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $51k → 8%UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY: $42k → 8%UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY: $16k → 8%UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY: $15k → 8%UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY: $15k → 8%UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY: $10k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $10k → 8%UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY: $5k → 8%DENTON ISD: $5k → 8%UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY: $5k → 8%LEWISVILLE ISD: $150k → 8%LEWISVILLE ISD: $125k → 8%LEWISVILLE ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $22k → 8%LEWISVILLE ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $25k → 8%LEWISVILLE ISD EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $20k → 8%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 10 repeat orgs$117k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
2

Total granted

$1.3M
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+92%

Still filing today

50%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $107k 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
Crime & LegalPhilanthropyHealthEducationHuman ServicesCivil 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

  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $108k · revenue +31%
  • HS
    HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $58k · revenue +82%
  • CI
    Communities in Schools of North Texas Inc
    5× · 2021–2025 · $55k · revenue +35%

Funded once

  • DI
    DENTON ISD
    one grant, 2024 · $5k
  • JC
    JOHNSON COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +92%
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
04the grantee network

7 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 7 of the 14 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)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $562,377 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXASLEWISVILLE ISD: $275,000 · OtherLEWISVILLE ISDUNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS: $51,000 · OtherNORTH TEXAS STATE FAIR: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $44,000 · Other+2 more: $35,201 · OtherUNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY INC: $107,760 · PhilanthropyLewisville Education Foundation Inc: $67,000 · EducationCHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER FOR NORTH TEXAS INC: $55,800 · Crime & LegalJOHNSON COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER: $5,000 · Crime & LegalHEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS INC: $57,500 · HealthCommunities in Schools of North Texas Inc: $54,600 · Human ServicesCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF DENTON COUNTY INC: $30,000 · Civil Rights
Other$1,017,578Philanthropy$107,760Education$67,000Crime & Legal$60,800Health$57,500Human Services$54,600Civil Rights$30,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY INC: $107,760 over 7y, 1.5% of budgetLewisville Education Foundation Inc: $67,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetHEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS INC: $57,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetCommunities in Schools of North Texas Inc: $54,600 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF DENTON COUNTY INC: $30,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetJOHNSON COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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 UNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds Lewisville Education Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds HEALTH SERVICES OF NORTH TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER FOR NORTH TEXAS INC ↗
  • Who funds Communities in Schools of North Texas Inc ↗
  • Who funds COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF DENTON COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds JOHNSON COUNTY CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER ↗

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.

Communities Foundatio…Coserv Charitable Fou…United Way of Metropo…Community Foundation …McKesson Foundation I…Charities Aid Foundat…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Communities Foundation of Texas IncTX14.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Coserv Charitable Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Dallas Inc · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · McKesson Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 Datcu funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Datcu. 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%8%15%22%30%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 · 0–30%
    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 14 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 Datcu’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