Skip to content
Rural Capital Area Workforce Development Board at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$44M
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$26M
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, FY2018 to 2025.

Employment$147MHuman Services$85MCommunity Improvement$603kPhilanthropy$128k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $412k
  • $250k+7 grants · $44M
$604,388
Median grant
2
States reached
$11M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 25% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $33.4M → 6%Equus Workforce Services: $8.8M → 9%Emergent ED Child Care Consulting: $233k → 10%C2 Global Professional Services LLC: $2.2M → 10%Smithville Workforce Training Center: $591k → 12%Workforce Network Inc: $604k → 13%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $31.9M → 6%Rescare Workforce Services: $8.5M → 9%Emergent ED Child Care Consulting Inc: $206k → 10%C2 Global Professional Services LLC: $123k → 10%Smithville Workforce Training Center: $590k → 12%Workforce Network Inc: $594k → 13%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $26.3M → 6%Equus Workforce Services: $7.3M → 9%Emergent ED Child Care Consulting Inc: $52k → 10%Workforce Greater Austin Area Workforce Board: $50k → 10%Smithville Workforce Training Center: $366k → 12%Workforce Network Inc: $334k → 13%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $22.0M → 6%ResCare Workforce Services: $7.2M → 9%United Way for Greater Austin: $128k → 10%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $20.5M → 6%Rescare Workforce Services: $6.0M → 9%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $17.2M → 6%ResCare Workforce Services: $4.6M → 9%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $14.9M → 6%ResCare Workforce Services: $4.2M → 9%Neighborhood Centers Inc: $1.1M → 6%ResCare Workforce Services: $4.1M → 9%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$226M · 9 repeat orgs$6.7M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
1

Total granted

$226M
$52k

Still filing today

44%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.7M went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesPhilanthropyEmploymentPublic BenefitEducationReligionOther
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

  • TS
    THIRD SECTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.6M · revenue +68%
  • SW
    Smithville Workforce Training Center
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +51% · 49% of their budget
  • WN
    WORKFORCE NETWORK INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +27% · 87% of their budget

Funded once

  • EE
    Emergent ED Child Care Consulting Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $52k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 13 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Neighborhood Centers Inc: $109,218,858 · OtherNeighborhood Centers IncNEIGHBORHOOD CENTER INC: $58,232,800 · OtherNEIGHBORHOOD CENTER INCRescare Workforce Services: $34,687,645 · OtherRescare Workforce ServicesEquus Workforce Services: $16,027,356 · OtherEquus Workforce Services+3 more: $2,836,566 · OtherBakerRipley: $6,513,104 · Human ServicesTHIRD SECTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS INC: $1,566,016 · Public BenefitSmithville Workforce Training Center: $1,547,150 · EducationWORKFORCE NETWORK INC: $1,532,769 · ReligionUNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN: $128,267 · PhilanthropyWORKSOURCE - GREATER AUSTIN AREA DBA WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS - CAPITAL: $50,175 · Employment
Other$221,003,225Human Services$6,513,104Public Benefit$1,566,016Education$1,547,150Religion$1,532,769Philanthropy$128,267Employment$50,175

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 budgetTHIRD SECTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS INC: $1,566,016 over 3y, 9.9% of budgetSmithville Workforce Training Center: $1,547,150 over 3y, 49% of budgetWORKFORCE NETWORK INC: $1,532,769 over 3y, 87% of budgetUNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN: $128,267 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetWORKSOURCE - GREATER AUSTIN AREA DBA WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS - CAPITAL: $50,175 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.

  • 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 ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Rural Capital Area Workforce Development Board funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rural Capital Area Workforce Development Board. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →median 16%
  • Third Sector Capital Partners Inc: 16% of income from government
  • Neighborhood Center Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get 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 13 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Rural Capital Area Workforce Development Board’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