Skip to content
Ennar Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ennar Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$9k
Granted FY2018
11
Grants FY2018
1
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Ennar Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2018, the last year Ennar Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $9k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

1
’17
10
’18
2
’19
1
’20
0
’21
0
’23
0
’24
0
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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.

Philanthropy$105kHealth$24kPublic Benefit$10kArts & Culture$4kEmployment$2kFood & Nutrition$2kHousing & Shelter$600Human Services$500
02FY2018 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$600
Median grant
1
States reached
$234k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DRESS FOR SUCCESS AUSTIN$2,000
THE CONTEMPORARY AUSTIN$1,750
THE MCNAY ART MUSEUM$700
CARITAS OF AUSTIN$600
MOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC$600
MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS$600
CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK$600
PLANNED LIVING ASSISTANCE NETWORK OF CENTRAL TEXAS$500
THE SAFE ALLIANCE$500
NAMI AUSTIN$500
THE CIBOLO FOUNDATION$350
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 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $100k → 16%THE SAFE ALLIANCE: $500 → 10%SOUND OFF INC: $10k → 16%BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $12k → 16%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $37k → 16%THE CONTEMPORARY AUSTIN: $2k → 10%MCNAY MUSEUM: $750 → 16%THE CIBOLO FOUNDATION: $350 → 16%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $25k → 16%CARITAS OF AUSTIN: $600 → 10%THE MCNAY ART MUSEUM: $700 → 16%BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $10k → 16%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $22k → 16%NAMI AUSTIN: $500 → 10%THE PUBLIC THEATER OF SAN ANTONIO: $1k → 16%THE CIBOLO FOUNDATION: $350 → 16%FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $20k → 16%CENTRAL TEXAS FOOD BANK: $600 → 10%DRESS FOR SUCCESS AUSTIN: $2k → 10%MEALS ON WHEELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $600 → 10%MOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC: $600 → 10%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.

55%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$24k · 3 repeat orgs$20k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2018, 1 since wound down; 12 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call). Read against FY2018, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
12

Total granted

$24k
$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+66%

Still filing today

33%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $750 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
Arts & CultureFood & NutritionEducationPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementReligionOther
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

  • BC
    Baylor College of Medicine
    2× · 2019–2020 · $22k · revenue +47%
  • PL
    Planned Living Assistance Network of Central Texas Inc
    2× · 2017–2018 · $2k · revenue +9%
  • TC
    THE CIBOLO FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $700

Funded once

  • SO
    SOUND OFFgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +114%
  • DF
    DRESS FOR SUCCESS AUSTINgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue +180%
  • TC
    THE CONTEMPORARY AUSTIN MUSEUM INC
    one grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue -28%
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
Leadership Austin

Leadership austin connects and develops leaders to courageously engage and transform our communities.

Youth Development
2
Good Work Austin

Good Work Austin's mission is to foster healthy careers in the local food and beverage industry through professional development and advocacy for more equitable practices.

Public Benefit
3
Visiting Nurse Association of Texas

Established in 1934, vna helps older adults live with dignity and independence at home by providing in-home care, food and friendship for the ill, hungry, and homebound.

Health
4
Community Information Now

Community information now (cinow) provides data, tools, analysis, and training to inform decisions to improve texas communities. cinow's vision is improved lives and decreased disparities through democratized data.

Community Improvement
5
Feeding Texas

To lead a unified effort for a hunger-free texas.

Community Improvement
6
Central Texas Palliative Care Associates Dba Austin Palliative Care

Austin palliative care provides medical director services to hospice austin as well as palliative care to patients who are not yet admitted to hospice programs.

Health
7
Meals On Wheels San Antonio

To provide services which focus on nourishing lives, enabling independence and caring for the most frail and isolated residents in the greater san antonio region.

—
8
Austin Street Center

The mission of austin street center is to provide emergency shelter and related services to the homeless. programs provide crisis intervention, substance abuse awareness information and opportunities to improve present life situations to…

—
9
Banner -University Medical Group

Assist banner health complete its mission to make health care easier so life can be better by providing integrated & coordinated care & population health management.

Health
10
Connectability

ConnectAbility's mission is to empower those with life altering disabilities and their caregivers to reach their fullest potential.

Human Services
11
Uatx

Uatx is a nonprofit dedicated to building a liberal arts university committed to freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, and civil discourse. to maintain these principles, the university will be fiercely independent financially,…

Education
12
American Civil Liberties Union of Texas Inc

The ACLU of Texas works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mobile Loaves & Fishes Inc; the most unlike its peers is Planned Living Assistance Network of Central 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

13 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. 13 of the 16 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)
12/13
Grantees still filing
12/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $204,000 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND+1 more: $2,000 · Community ImprovementBaylor College of Medicine: $21,605 · EducationBaylor Co…SOUND OFF: $10,000 · Public BenefitPlanned Living Assistance Network of Central Texas Inc: $1,500 · OtherTHE PUBLIC THEATER OF SAN ANTONIO: $1,000 · OtherMCNAY MUSEUM: $750 · OtherTHE CIBOLO FOUNDATION: $700 · OtherCARITAS OF AUSTIN: $600 · OtherNAMI Central Texas: $500 · OtherTHE SAFE ALLIANCE: $500 · OtherTHE CONTEMPORARY AUSTIN MUSEUM INC: $1,750 · Arts & CultureMCNAY ART MUSEUM: $700 · Arts & CultureCentral Texas Food Bank Inc: $600 · Food & NutritionMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC: $600 · Food & NutritionMOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC: $600 · Religion
Community Improvement$206,000Education$21,605Public Benefit$10,000Other$5,550Arts & Culture$2,450Food & Nutrition$1,200Religion$600

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 budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $204,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetBaylor College of Medicine: $21,605 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSOUND OFF: $10,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetDRESS FOR SUCCESS AUSTIN: $2,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetTHE CONTEMPORARY AUSTIN MUSEUM INC: $1,750 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPlanned Living Assistance Network of Central Texas Inc: $1,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetMCNAY ART MUSEUM: $700 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC: $600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCentral Texas Food Bank Inc: $600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS AND MORE INC: $600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCARITAS OF AUSTIN: $600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNAMI Central Texas: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SAFE ALLIANCE: $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.

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.

Austin Community Foun…The Moody FoundationCharities Aid Foundat…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Austin Community Foundation IncTX15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Austin Community Foundation Inc · The Moody Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Ennar Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ennar Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%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
    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
    ⤢ 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 16 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ennar’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