· Public charity
Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council
To reduce death/disability related to trauma, disaster and acute illness through implementation of a well-planned and coordinated regional emergency response system.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 33 grants below total $452,560 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,945,647 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $4,493,087 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k16 grants · $105k
- $10k–50k17 grants · $348k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| VAL VERDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER EMS | $47,575 |
| SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPARTMENT | $40,024 |
| Individual grant recipient | $30,753 |
| LA SALLE CO FIRE RESCUE | $21,918 |
| EAGLE PASS FIRE DEPT | $20,953 |
| Individual grant recipient | $19,872 |
| Individual grant recipient | $19,552 |
| CAMINO REAL AMBULANCE INC | $19,471 |
| Individual grant recipient | $19,092 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,870 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,183 |
| GONZALES CO ESD #1 | $16,198 |
| Individual grant recipient | $12,267 |
| Individual grant recipient | $11,819 |
| Individual grant recipient | $11,431 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 92% of your 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.
41 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2024, 23 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $163k 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
- CICROSSPOINT INC4× · 2018–2021 · $3.5M · revenue +170%
- HFHaven for Hope of Bexar County4× · 2018–2021 · $987k · revenue +21%
- CECOMMUNITY EMS INC5× · 2018–2024 · $75k · revenue +108%
Funded once
- SASAN ANTONIO FIREone grant, 2021 · $2.5M
- CCCHCS- CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICESone grant, 2021 · $1.8M
- TVTEXAS VISTA MEDICAL CENTER- (SW GENERAL)one grant, 2021 · $1.6M
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 keep communities healthy and strong by leveraging partnerships with local regional governments, area hospitals, and local health-care providers. To provide excellent patient care to local taxpayers.
Emergency services in specified area of brazoria county, texas. currently dispatching three ambulances with related personnel. the organization annually provides care to more than 1000 patients in an approximate 450 square mile area of…
Provide Emergency Medical Service to City of Sabinal TX and Surrounding Area;Provide Ambulance service for Medical Transfers for Uvalde County TX
North blanco county ems provides emergency medical/ambulance service to the blanco county community.
To provide emergency medical services, including rescue and ambulance services to the citizens of garza county, texas and the surrounding areas
Provide ambulance service for the sick and injured, primarily in unincorporated areas of East Harris County
Provide mobile intensive care unit service to the general public in san patricio, aransas, and nueces county.
Rural emergency medical services
Ambulance service for willacy county texas and surrounding area
The hospital provides el campo and surrounding areas with the highest standard of care through a broad range of services: inpatient, swing bed, emergency, surgical, laboratory, imaging, respiratory, etc.
Striving to ensure the people of Navarro County & beyond are provided quality healthcare.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Ems Inc and the most unlike its peers is Harper Volunteer Fire Department Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 of the 92 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.
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: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council 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.