· Public charity
Spirit of Giving Fund
Combat hunger and malnutrition by providing emergency food, housing, and miscellaneous aid for those in need;Catastrophic/Disaster Relief
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $295,002 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $326,982 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $31,980 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 $10k1 grant · $9k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $286k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Communities in Schools of San Antonio | $136,000 |
| American Farmland Trust | $100,000 |
| TEXSAR | $50,000 |
| Clark Hill PLC | $9,002 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–23, $275k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 10% of Spirit of Giving Fund’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 90% of the giving stays in TX; read by stated purpose it is 82% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
Communities in schools of central texas (cisct) ensures students have holistic support, removing academic and nonacademic barriers to their success in school.
Child Advocacy
To continuously improve the lives of South Texans by providing high quality health care, education, housing and economic opportunities to reduce poverty through services and partnerships.
To make every child's potential a reality by engaging and empowering families and communities to advocate for all children.
Fort Bend County Child Advocates, Inc. provides a voice, heals the hurt and breaks the cycle of abuse and neglect for children in Fort Bend County.
To enhance the ability of families to protect, nuture, and educate their children in the first five years of life and enable them to enter school ready to learn.
To provide alcohol and drug use prevention, intervention and recovery services to children, youth and adults in the community.
To advocate for and provide services to children and families when there are allegations of abuse and neglect throughout the investigation,prosecution, treatment, and prevention of child abuse, and to reduce the trauma to childrent with…
To reduce death/disability related to trauma, disaster and acute illness through implementation of a well-planned and coordinated regional emergency response system.
To protect and enhance the quality of life for abused and neglected children in Medina, Real and Uvalde Counties of Texas.
To meet the needs of students in at-risk situations by improving academics, marketable skills, attendance, and behavior through the partnership of school, home, and community so that young people stay in school, learn successfully and…
Lone star justice alliance (lsja) was established in 2017 as a non-profit legal organization to boldly address systemic failures in the justice system through advocacy and innovative evidence-based programs that improve life outcomes for…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Childrens Bereavement Center of South Texas and the most unlike its peers is American Farmland Trust. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
21 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. 21 of the 32 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 Rebuilding Together Houston ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS OF SAN ANTONIO ↗
- Who funds Rockport Art Association Inc ↗
- Who funds MEADOWS MENTAL HEALTH POLICY INSTITUTE FOR TEXAS ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST ↗
- Who funds Family Service Association of San Antonio Inc ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS BEREAVEMENT CENTER OF SOUTH TEXAS ↗
- Who funds MAINLAND CHILDRENS PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds PORT ARANSAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEXSAR INC ↗
- Who funds UCISD PTO ↗
- Who funds Jewish Family Service of San Antonio Texas Inc ↗
- Who funds ROCKPORT HANDS OF HOPE ↗
- Who funds CLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE SAFE ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds MOBILE LOAVES & FISHES INC ↗
- Who funds VINCARE SERVICES OF AUSTIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FOUNDATION COMMUNITIES INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF THE CROSSROADS ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY FOR GREATER AUSTIN ↗
- Who funds UVALDE CLASSICAL ACADEMY ↗
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: United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County · Texas Mutual Insurance Company · The Onestar Foundation · Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas Inc · Greater Houston Community Foundation · St Luke's Lutheran Health Ministries Inc · The Texas Cavaliers Charitable Foundation · Faye L & William L Cowden Charitable Foundation · Shield-Ayres Foundation · The Brown Foundation Inc · Genevieve & Ward Orsinger Foundation · John R & Greli N Less Charitable Trust #FE324
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 Spirit of Giving Fund 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Spirit of Giving Fund?
Find your warmest path to Spirit of Giving Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.