· Public charity
Rural Capital Area Workforce Development Board
Build an employer driven workforce that meets the demands of a global economy by actively involving business leaders in decisions that allows them to identify labor and economic trends, obtain customized training, and hire higher skilled workers while promoting the welfare, education, training and job placement of job seekers.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k3 grants · $412k
- $250k+7 grants · $44M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Neighborhood Centers Inc | $26,325,683 |
| Equus Workforce Services | $7,252,337 |
| BakerRipley | $6,513,104 |
| C2 Global Professional Services LLC | $2,221,856 |
| Workforce Network Inc | $604,388 |
| Smithville Workforce Training Center | $591,463 |
| Third Sector Capital Partners Inc | $481,242 |
| Emergent ED Child Care Consulting | $233,403 |
| United Way for Greater Austin | $128,267 |
| Workforce Greater Austin Area Workforce Board | $50,175 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 25% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
9 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.7M 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
- TSTHIRD SECTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS INC3× · 2023–2025 · $1.6M · revenue +68%
- SWSmithville Workforce Training Center3× · 2023–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +51% · 49% of their budget
- WNWORKFORCE NETWORK INC3× · 2023–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +27% · 87% of their budget
Funded once
- EEEmergent ED Child Care Consulting Incone grant, 2023 · $52k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
7 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. 7 of the 13 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 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds BakerRipley ↗
- Who funds THIRD SECTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS INC ↗
- Who funds Smithville Workforce Training Center ↗
- Who funds WORKFORCE NETWORK INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN ↗
- Who funds WORKSOURCE - GREATER AUSTIN AREA DBA WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS - CAPITAL ↗
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Rural Capital Area Workforce Development Board 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Third Sector Capital Partners Inc — 16% of income from government
- Neighborhood Center Inc — 1% of income from government
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.