· Public charity
Pape-Dawson Engineers Charitable Foundation
The foundation's purpose is to raise funds to support the community.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k15 grants · $290k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO | $60,000 |
| CHILDSAFE | $30,000 |
| HAVEN FOR HOPE OF BEXAR COUNTY | $30,000 |
| FISHER HOUSE INC | $30,000 |
| FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | $30,000 |
| HOUSTON CHILDREN'S CHARITY | $30,000 |
| CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION | $20,000 |
| WELL COMMUNITY | $15,000 |
| MINNIE'S FOOD PANTRY | $15,000 |
| TEXAS ADVOCACY PROJECT INC | $15,000 |
| THE PARENTING CENTER | $15,000 |
| FOSTER ANGELS OF CENTRAL TEXAS FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| WOMEN'S CENTER OF TARRANT COUNTY FOUNDATION | $15,000 |
| KIDS' MEALS INC | $10,000 |
| FORT BEND COMMUNITY PARTNERS RAINBOW ROOM | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $500k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +28% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
19 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $160k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- MOMEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO6× · 2018–2025 · $200k · revenue +153%
- UWUNITED WAY OF SAN ANTONIO AND BEXAR COUNTY4× · 2017–2020 · $95k · revenue +12%
- FVFAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC3× · 2018–2025 · $80k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- MMMORNINGSIDE MINISTRIESone grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue -12%
- TRTHE RETREAT HOME FOR CHILDRENone grant, 2024 · $30k
- SWSTEPS WITH HORSESone grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue 0%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To provide shelter, supervision, and counseling for children in crisis; to cooperate with other agencies in order to resolve problems related to the welfare of these children; to assist the families of these children in seeking possible…
To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.
Fort Bend County Child Advocates, Inc. provides a voice, heals the hurt and breaks the cycle of abuse and neglect for children in Fort Bend County.
Training and supporting quality volunteers who speak out for the best interest of abused and neglected children in court in an effort to find each child a safe, permanent, nurturing home.
The Organizations mission is to bring unity and efficiency to investigations of child abuse through the use of a multi-disciplinary team and, thereby, to provide the best possible services to victims of child abuse and their families.
TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.
Child Advocacy
To provide a neutral, child friendly organization that facilitates a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation, intervention and treatment of child abuse.
To promote and develop local court-appointed special advocates programs throughout texas.
San antonio foster care and adoption services inc. is a licensed child placement agency in the state of texas. the organization cares for children placed in foster care by the state of texas.
CASA of Williamson County, TX exists to empower community volunteers to advocate for children who have experienced abuse or neglect to find loving, safe, and permanent homes.
Lone Star CASA elevates the voices of children in Kaufman and Rockwall County who have experienced abuse and neglect by providing trained volunteer advocates to work alongside children and families so they can achieve safety and stability…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Childrens Bereavement Center of South Texas and the most unlike its peers is Reining Strength Therapeutic Horsemanship. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 37 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 28% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 17% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
67 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 67 of the 71 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS SAN ANTONIO ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF SAN ANTONIO AND BEXAR COUNTY ↗
- Who funds FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds OPERATION HOMEFRONT INC ↗
- Who funds Kinetic Kids Inc ↗
- Who funds FISHER HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS BEREAVEMENT CENTER OF SOUTH TEXAS ↗
- Who funds CHILDSAFE ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S SHELTER ↗
- Who funds CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC ↗
- Who funds SOLDIERS' ANGELS ↗
- Who funds RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SAN ANTONIO INC ↗
- Who funds Haven for Hope of Bexar County ↗
- Who funds LUNCHES OF LOVE ↗
- Who funds MORNINGSIDE MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds HOUSTON'S CHARITY FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds THE RETREAT HOME FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds STEPS WITH HORSES ↗
- Who funds SUNSHINE COTTAGE SCHOOL FOR DEAF CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds CHILD ADVOCATES SAN ANTONIO ↗
- Who funds CASA DE ESPERANZA DE LOS NINOS INC ↗
- Who funds CLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS OF TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS RAMP PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION ↗
- Who funds CASA OF TARRANT COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds CHRISTUS CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC ↗
- Who funds Central Texas Food Bank Inc ↗
- Who funds Tarrant Area Food Bank ↗
- Who funds NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds HOPE SUPPLY CO ↗
- Who funds THE WOMEN'S CENTER OF TARRANT COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds THE SAFE ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds KID NET FOUNDATION JONATHANS PLACE ↗
- Who funds MISSION OF YAHWEH INC ↗
- Who funds WEST HOUSTON ASSISTANCE MINISTRIES INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: San Antonio Area Foundation · St Luke's Lutheran Health Ministries Inc · Nancy Smith Hurd Foundation · Faye L & William L Cowden Charitable Foundation · Marcia & Otto Koehler Foundation · John L Santikos Charitable Foundation · Harvey E Najim Charitable Foundation · The Charity Ball Association of San Antonio Inc · Elizabeth Huth Coates Charitable Foundation of 1992 · Marietta K Randall Foundation Trust · The Texas Cavaliers Charitable Foundation · United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Pape-Dawson Engineers Charitable Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Pape-Dawson Engineers Charitable Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Pape-Dawson Engineers Charitable Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.