Skip to content

· Private foundation

Phil & Karen Hunke Fam Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$115k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$317kEnvironment$163kHealth$101kAnimals$90kCommunity Improvement$50kHuman Services$28kPublic Safety & Disaster$13kReligion$12kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k7 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $45k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEST NATURE SCHOOL$50,000
Individual grant recipient$22,000
GLADYS PORTER ZOO$12,500
UT HEALTH SAN ANTONIO$10,000
SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIV$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
BERGHEIM VOL FIRE DEPT$3,000
DRISCOLL CHILD HOSPITAL$2,500
LAST CHANCE FOREVER$2,500
SISTER PROJECT$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
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 (FY20–20, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CHILD HELP: $1k → 11%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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$417k · 11 repeat orgs$359k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +58% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
29

Total granted

$417k
$332k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+58%
-8%

Still filing today

27%
31%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 77% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k 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
HealthAnimalsHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • CN
    CIBOLO NATURE CENTER
    3× · 2017–2019 · $110k
  • NN
    NEST NATURE SCHOOL
    2× · 2023–2024 · $100k
  • VZ
    VALLEY ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY
    6× · 2017–2024 · $90k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $62k
  • DG
    DAS GREENHAUS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -87%
  • TA
    TX A and M KINGSVILLE
    one grant, 2019 · $32k
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
Texas a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
2
Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas

Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation (TPWF) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization thatadvances Texas proud outdoor traditions through meaningful, high-impact programs,partnerships, and a wide range of projects that conserve and enhance our…

Environment
3
Texas Land Trust Council

To support texas land trusts and promote land conservation efforts in texas. host texas land conservation conference to educate conservation related professionals and volunteers from across the state.

Environment
4
Austin Area Foundation

Support nonprofit organizations by managing & distributing charitable gifts

Philanthropy
5
Kelsey Research Foundation

Kelsey Research Foundation (KRF) was founded in 1956 for the purpose of encouraging and assisting research and education programs in the field of medicine.

Health
6
Texas Neurofibromatosis Foundation

To fund neurofibromatosis research and education and to provide for support groups for those facing the illness.

Health
7
Texas Oncology Foundation Inc

Texas oncology foundation is organized exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, and educational purposes, including, for the purpose of making distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under…

Health
8
Texans for Vaccine Choice

Texans for vaccine choice exists to directly influence vaccine choice public policy and legislation

Health
9
Coastal Prairie Conservancy

The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) works to sustain a resilient Texas by preserving coastal prairies, wetlands, farms, and ranches to benefit people and wildlife forever. Continued on Schedule OCPC conserves land, restores and enhances…

Environment
10
Big Thicket Natural Heritage Trust

We acquire properties to be donated to the National Park Service and state entities and advocate for protection of Big Thicket natural resources.

Environment
11
Texas Food & Wine Alliance fka Austin F&W Alliance

Texas Food & Wine Alliance is dedicated to fostering awareness and innovation in the Texas culinary community through grants, educational programing, and events.

—
12
Alaska Whale Foundation

Alaska Whale Foundation is dedicated to marine mammal conservation through research monitoring and education.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Baylor Oral Health Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Rebecca's Wish. 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

12 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. 12 of the 44 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)
12/12
Grantees still filing
5/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CIBOLO NATURE CENTER: $110,000 · OtherCIBOLO NATURE CENTERNEST NATURE SCHOOL: $100,000 · OtherNEST NATURE SCHOOLIndividual grant recipient: $62,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTX A and M KINGSVILLE: $31,500 · OtherTX A and M KINGSVILLETHE UNIV OF TX HEALTH SCIENCE CTR OF SA: $30,000 · OtherTEXAS A&M KINGSVILLE: $27,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $22,000 · OtherLEON SPRGS PRESBY CHRCH: $21,000 · OtherSAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY: $20,000 · Other+25 more: $154,000 · Other+25 moreVALLEY ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $90,000 · AnimalsVALLEY ZOOLOGI…LAST CHANCE FOREVER: $10,000 · AnimalsLAST CHANCE FO…DAS GREENHAUS INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementAMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · HealthBAYLOR ORAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: $10,000 · HealthREBECCA'S WISH: $5,000 · HealthTexas A&M University - Kingsville Foundation Inc: $11,000 · EducationTaking Care of Texas: $10,000 · EnvironmentCHILDHELP INC: $1,000 · Human ServicesKENDALL COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK ASSOCIAT: $500 · Youth Development
Other$577,500Animals$100,000Community Improvement$50,000Health$25,000Education$11,000Environment$10,000Human Services$1,000Youth Development$500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVALLEY ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $90,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetDAS GREENHAUS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetTexas A&M University - Kingsville Foundation Inc: $11,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetVANNIE E COOK JR CANCER FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetLAST CHANCE FOREVER: $10,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetTaking Care of Texas: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetBAYLOR ORAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWOMEN'S SHELTER OF SOUTH TEXAS: $5,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetREBECCA'S WISH: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCHILDHELP INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKENDALL COUNTY JUNIOR LIVESTOCK ASSOCIAT: $500 over 1y, 0.3% 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 VALLEY ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds DAS GREENHAUS INC ↗
  • Who funds Texas A&M University - Kingsville Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds VANNIE E COOK JR CANCER FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds LAST CHANCE FOREVER ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Taking Care of Texas ↗
  • Who funds BAYLOR ORAL HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S SHELTER OF SOUTH TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds REBECCA'S WISH ↗

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.

The Blackbaud Giving FundSC9.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · 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 Phil & Karen Hunke Fam Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Phil & Karen Hunke Fam Foundation. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 44 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 Phil & Karen Hunke Fam’s filings →

    More from the funding graph