Skip to content
Knapp Community Care Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Knapp Community Care Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.7M
Granted FY2024still arriving
25
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$600k
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.

Health$12MHuman Services$926kEducation$604kRecreation & Sports$559kFood & Nutrition$500kEmployment$360kYouth Development$160kEnvironment$140kOther$0
02FY2024 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $5k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $191k
  • $50k–250k13 grants · $913k
  • $250k+1 grant · $600k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$125M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EL MILAGRO CLINIC$600,000
COMMUNITY HOPE PROJECTSHOPE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER$140,000
VALLEY INITIATIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCEMENT (VIDA)$100,000
VALLEY NATURE CENTER$100,000
AURORA HOUSE FOUNDATION$87,035
SOUTH TEXAS JUVENILE DIABETES ASSOCIATION$63,245
SU CASA DE ESPARANZA INC$60,000
CHILDREN'S BEREAVEMENT CENTER OF THE RGV$58,000
DENTIST WHO CARE$55,000
THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WESLACO INC$50,000
OPEN HANDS COMMUNITY CHARITABLE SERVICES$50,000
ACCESS ESPERANZA CLINICS INC$50,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF EDINBURG RGV$50,000
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF THE HILDAGO CO$50,000
AFFORDABLE HOMES OF SOUTH TEXAS INC$30,000
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 (FY18–24, $1.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 64% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%IT'S TIME TEXAS: $200k → 10%IT'S TIME TEXAS: $150k → 10%IT'S TIME TEXAS: $48k → 10%DENTIST WHO CARE: $180k → 27%DENTIST WHO CARE: $165k → 27%DENTIST WHO CARE: $55k → 27%DENTIST WHO CARE: $50k → 27%AURORA HOUSE FOUNDATION: $87k → 27%DENTIST WHO CARE: $15k → 27%AURORA HOUSE FOUNDATION: $68k → 27%BUCKNER CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES: $30k → 27%OPEN HANDS COMMUNITY CHARITABLE SERVICES: $50k → 27%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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14M · 27 repeat orgs$861k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against +4% for those funded once.

27 repeat relationships: 14 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
8

Total granted

$14M
$547k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+4%

Still filing today

70%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $314k 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
HealthHuman ServicesEducationHousing & ShelterYouth DevelopmentPublic BenefitOther
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

  • LR
    Lower Rio Grande Valley Community Health Management
    6× · 2018–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +91%
  • AE
    ACCESS ESPERANZA CLINICS INC
    6× · 2018–2024 · $597k · revenue +59%
  • ST
    SOUTH TEXAS JUVENILE DIABETES ASSOCIATION
    7× · 2018–2024 · $440k · revenue +608% · 33% of their budget

Funded once

  • MM
    MEADOWS MENTAL HEALTH POLICY INSTITUTE FOR TEXASgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $159k · revenue +418%
  • CO
    CITY OF WESLACO
    one grant, 2018 · $125k
  • TA
    Texas A&M Foundationgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +116%
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
Healthy Family Services of Texas Inc

Healthy Family Services of Texas is dedicated to promoting the physical, mental, and emotional health of our patients by offering comprehensive healthcare services and wellness programs.

Health
2
Atascosa Health Center Inc

Health care services are provided to low to moderate income families who are residents of South Texas. Services are provided at a low cost are based on abiilty to pay base. Approximately 18,022 patients were served in the fiscal year.

Health
3
Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas dba Every Body Tx

Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas ("WHFPT") is dedicated to the belief that all Texans deserve the right to determine the number, timing, and spacing of their children through access to affordable, confidential,…

Health
4
Central Texas Pregnancy Care Center

Pregnancy counseling

Human Services
5
South Texas Rural Health Services

South Texas Rural Health Services, Inc. provides charitable health services, including the recruitment of health care personnel to the rural service area, and primarily serves the low income population.

Health
6
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health provides comprehensive and complementary health care services in settings that preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of the individual, advocates…

Health
7
Tejas Health Care

To provide primary health and dental care to the underserved of fayette and lee counties, texas.

Health
8
HealthTexas Provider Network

To deliver the highest value patient experience through quality, safety, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness, enhanced by medical education and research in collaboration with Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH).

Health
9
Vida Y Salud Health Systems Inc

Vida Y Salud-Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1972 and provides health services to the people of Zavala,Dimmit,LaSalle,Uvalde and surrounding counties. The clinic maintains four program/service delivery sites and provides services such…

Health
10
South Texas Pregnancy Care Center

Crisis pregnancy counseling.

Health
11
Planned Parenthood San Antonio

Provide family planning and reproductive healthcare services to both adults and teenagers, with particular emphasis on serving low-income and medically underserved populations.

Health
12
Novelty Behavioral Health

Our mission is to provide Accessible and Affordable Holistic-Based mental-health care to the communities we serve without without regard to their background or insurance status in a caring environment.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is It's Time Texas Inc; the most unlike its peers is Aurora House Foundation. 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

28 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. 28 of the 46 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
28/28
Grantees still filing
16/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KNAPP MEDICAL CENTER: $6,000,000 · HealthKNAPP MEDICAL CENTERLower Rio Grande Valley Community Health Management: $1,077,617 · HealthLower Rio Grande Valley Community Health ManagementACCESS ESPERANZA CLINICS INC: $597,125 · HealthACCESS ESPERANZA CLINICS INCSOUTH TEXAS JUVENILE DIABETES ASSOCIATION: $440,296 · HealthHOLY FAMILY SERVICES INC: $437,800 · Health+4 more: $227,587 · HealthUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRANDE VALLEY: $872,516 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RIO GRAND…TROPICAL TEXAS BEHAVIOR HEALTH: $620,000 · OtherTROPICAL TEXAS BEHAVIOR HEALT…VALLEY NATURE CENTER: $515,000 · OtherVALLEY NATURE CENTERFOOD BANK OF RIO GRANDE VALLEY INC: $450,285 · OtherFOOD BANK OF RIO GRANDE VALLE…UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $268,922 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SC…TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: $225,548 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY HEALTH S…+20 more: $949,010 · Other+20 moreDENTISTS WHO CARE INC: $465,000 · Human ServicesIT'S TIME TEXAS INC: $397,395 · Human ServicesAURORA HOUSE FOUNDATION: $154,957 · Human ServicesOPEN HANDS COMMUNITY CHARITABLE SERVICES: $50,000 · Human Services+1 more: $30,000 · Human ServicesSu Casa De Esperanza Inc: $389,494 · EducationIDEA Public Schools: $200,000 · EducationTexas A&M Foundation: $99,990 · EducationCOMMUNITY HOPE PROJECTS INC: $265,000 · PhilanthropyVALLEY INITIATIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCEMENT: $200,000 · Community ImprovementTEAM MARIO: $160,020 · Public Benefit
Health$8,780,425Other$3,901,281Human Services$1,097,352Education$689,484Philanthropy$265,000Community Improvement$200,000Public Benefit$160,020

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 budgetKNAPP MEDICAL CENTER: $6,000,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetLower Rio Grande Valley Community Health Management: $1,077,617 over 6y, 14% of budgetACCESS ESPERANZA CLINICS INC: $597,125 over 6y, 2.5% of budgetDENTISTS WHO CARE INC: $465,000 over 5y, 28% of budgetFOOD BANK OF RIO GRANDE VALLEY INC: $450,285 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetSOUTH TEXAS JUVENILE DIABETES ASSOCIATION: $440,296 over 7y, 33% of budgetHOLY FAMILY SERVICES INC: $437,800 over 4y, 20% of budgetIT'S TIME TEXAS INC: $397,395 over 3y, 5.5% of budgetSu Casa De Esperanza Inc: $389,494 over 7y, 20% of budgetCOMMUNITY HOPE PROJECTS INC: $265,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetIDEA Public Schools: $200,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetVALLEY INITIATIVE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCEMENT: $200,000 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetTEAM MARIO: $160,020 over 3y, 36% of budgetMEADOWS MENTAL HEALTH POLICY INSTITUTE FOR TEXAS: $159,233 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetAURORA HOUSE FOUNDATION: $154,957 over 2y, 21% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WESLACO: $110,000 over 2y, 7.6% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $99,990 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS OF TEXAS INC: $88,236 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetPrevent Blindness Texas: $70,002 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetOPEN HANDS COMMUNITY CHARITABLE SERVICES: $50,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF BROWNSVILLE DBA COME DREAM COME BUILD: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTIP of Texas Family Outreach Inc: $47,405 over 1y, 23% of budgetAffordable Homes of South Texas Inc: $40,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetBUCKNER CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPlanned Parenthood South Texas: $30,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetRio Grande Valley Diabetes Assoc: $28,354 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetAMIGOS DEL VALLE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetANGEL FLIGHT INC DBA ANGEL FLIGHT SOUTH CENTRAL: $10,000 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.

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.

Valley Baptist Legacy…Raul Tijerina Jr Foun…Methodist Healthcare …Meadows Foundation IncThe John G and Marie …The Brown Foundation …Texas Mutual Insuranc…Greater Houston Commu…Communities Foundatio…Paypal Charitable Giv…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…
Valley Baptist Legacy FoundationTX45.2× affinity19 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Valley Baptist Legacy Foundation · Raul Tijerina Jr Foundation · Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas Inc · Meadows Foundation Inc · The John G and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation · The Brown Foundation Inc · Texas Mutual Insurance Company · Greater Houston Community Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc

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 Knapp Community Care Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Knapp Community Care Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%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
    0get no government money at all
    16report 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 46 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 Knapp Community Care’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