Skip to content

· 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.

$4.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
33
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$48k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$29MPublic Safety & Disaster$5.9MHousing & Shelter$987k
02FY2024 · 33 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 33 grants below total $452,560, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,945,647 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $4,493,087 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k16 grants · $105k
  • $10k–50k17 grants · $348k
$10,765
Median grant
1
States reached
$23M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 92% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%TEXAS VISTA MEDICAL CENTER- (SW GENERAL): $1.6M → 5%COMMUNITY EMS INC: $50k → 12%LAUREL RIDGE TREATMENT CENTER: $1.1M → 16%KARNES COUNTY EMS: $71k → 20%EDWARDS COUNTY EMS: $52k → 21%VAL VERDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER EMS: $82k → 21%AIRMED INTERNATIONAL: $62k → 16%VAL VERDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER EMS: $48k → 21%NEW BRAUNFELS FIRE: $291k → 10%VAL VERDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER EMS: $47k → 21%VAL VERDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER EMS: $45k → 21%BANDERA COUNTY EMS: $50k → 12%NIX HOSPITAL SYSTEMS PES: $3.0M → 16%NIX HOSPITAL SYSTEMS PES: $2.0M → 16%SAN ANTONIO FIRE (SAFD): $2.5M → 16%SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPT: $1.4M → 16%SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPT: $660k → 16%SAN ANTONIO FIRE: $475k → 16%HAVEN FOR HOPE OF BEXAR COUNTY: $353k → 16%HAVEN FOR HOPE OF BEXAR COUNTY: $319k → 16%HAVEN FOR HOPE OF BEXAR COUNTY: $308k → 16%MOBILE INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: $230k → 16%SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPT: $164k → 16%SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPARTMENT: $40k → 16%CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICE: $1.8M → 16%CHCS- CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES: $1.8M → 16%CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICE: $89k → 16%DISTRICT 7 FIRE RESCUE: $262k → 16%SOUTHWEST GENERAL HOSPITAL - V: $1.4M → 16%SOUTHWEST GENERAL HOSPITAL: $239k → 16%METHODIST HEALTHCARE: $265k → 16%METHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT HOSPITAL: $1.5M → 16%METHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT: $1.1M → 16%CLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER: $862k → 16%UTHSCSA- DEPT OF PSYCHIATRY: $846k → 16%UT HEALTH AT SAN ANTONIO: $632k → 16%CLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER: $189k → 16%UTHSCSA: $150k → 16%METHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT: $102k → 16%BEXAR COUNTY ESD NO 2: $861k → 16%AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE INC: $45k → 16%SAN ANTONIO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: $239k → 16%CROSSPOINT INC: $1.4M → 16%CROSSPOINT: $1.1M → 16%CROSSPOINT: $769k → 16%CROSSPOINT: $154k → 16%SCHERTZ EMS: $162k → 16%SCHERTZ EMS: $114k → 16%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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$22M · 41 repeat orgs$14M to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

41
36

Total granted

$22M
$14M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
+147%

Still filing today

10%
11%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 64% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $163k 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
HealthHousing & ShelterPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • CI
    CROSSPOINT INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $3.5M · revenue +170%
  • HF
    Haven for Hope of Bexar County
    4× · 2018–2021 · $987k · revenue +21%
  • CE
    COMMUNITY EMS INC
    5× · 2018–2024 · $75k · revenue +108%

Funded once

  • SA
    SAN ANTONIO FIRE
    one grant, 2021 · $2.5M
  • CC
    CHCS- CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES
    one grant, 2021 · $1.8M
  • TV
    TEXAS VISTA MEDICAL CENTER- (SW GENERAL)
    one grant, 2021 · $1.6M
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
San Marcos Hays County Emergency Medical Services Incorporated

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.

—
2
Central Emergency Medical Service Inc

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…

Health
3
Sabinal Emergency Medical Services

Provide Emergency Medical Service to City of Sabinal TX and Surrounding Area;Provide Ambulance service for Medical Transfers for Uvalde County TX

—
4
North Blanco County Emergency Medical Services Inc

North blanco county ems provides emergency medical/ambulance service to the blanco county community.

—
5
Post-Garza County Ems

To provide emergency medical services, including rescue and ambulance services to the citizens of garza county, texas and the surrounding areas

Health
6
North Channel Emergency Medical Services

Provide ambulance service for the sick and injured, primarily in unincorporated areas of East Harris County

—
7
Tri County Emergency Medical Services Inc

Provide mobile intensive care unit service to the general public in san patricio, aransas, and nueces county.

—
8
Frontier Ambulance Corporation

Rural emergency medical services

Health
9
Willacy County Ems Inc

Ambulance service for willacy county texas and surrounding area

Health
10
El Campo Memorial Hospital

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.

Health
11
Navarro County Ambulatory Care Association

Striving to ensure the people of Navarro County & beyond are provided quality healthcare.

Health
12
Big Horn County Memorial Hospital Auxiliary
Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Ems Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NIX HOSPITAL SYSTEMS PES: $5,006,664 · OtherNIX HOSPITAL SYSTEMS PESSAN ANTONIO FIRE (SAFD): $2,538,593 · OtherSAN ANTONIO FIRE (SAFD)SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPT: $2,256,509 · OtherSAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPTCENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICE: $1,908,801 · OtherCENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICECHCS- CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES: $1,750,486 · OtherCHCS- CENTER FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICESSAN ANTONIO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: $1,647,800 · OtherSAN ANTONIO BEHAVIORAL HEALTHTEXAS VISTA MEDICAL CENTER- (SW GENERAL): $1,566,159 · OtherMETHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT HOSPITAL: $1,464,959 · OtherSOUTHWEST GENERAL HOSPITAL - V: $1,409,100 · OtherMETHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT: $1,207,800 · OtherLAUREL RIDGE TREATMENT CENTER: $1,117,050 · Other+75 more: $8,673,926 · Other+75 moreCROSSPOINT INC: $3,462,886 · HealthCROSSPOINT INCCLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER: $1,051,600 · HealthCLARITY CHILD …+2 more: $26,880 · HealthHaven for Hope of Bexar County: $987,181 · Housing & ShelterHARPER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT INC: $9,336 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$30,547,847Health$4,541,366Housing & Shelter$987,181Public Safety & Disaster$9,336

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCROSSPOINT INC: $3,462,886 over 4y, 20% of budgetCLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER: $1,051,600 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetHaven for Hope of Bexar County: $987,181 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetCOMMUNITY EMS INC: $75,454 over 5y, 3.2% of budgetChristus Santa Rosa Health Care Corporation: $19,850 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCANYON LAKE FIREEMS: $17,683 over 1y, 59% of budgetEMS OF NUECES CANYON: $13,925 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetHARPER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT INC: $9,336 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetFRIO CANYON EMS INC: $7,030 over 1y, 3.4% 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 CROSSPOINT INC ↗
  • Who funds CLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Haven for Hope of Bexar County ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA4.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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 92 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council’s filings →

    More from the funding graph