Skip to content
The McBryde Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The McBryde Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$34k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$8k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$49kYouth Development$38kInternational$38kHuman Services$35kFood & Nutrition$30kReligion$28kPublic Safety & Disaster$10k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$7,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$617k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION$7,500
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE TEXAS HILL COUNTRY$7,500
COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS$7,000
CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL & FAMLY SVS$7,000
CHILDREN'S BEREAVEMENT CENTER OF SOUTH TEXAS$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY19–25, $68k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 22% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CHILDREN'S BEREAVEMENT CENTER OF SOUTH TEXAS: $5k → 16%LAKE IVIE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT: $10k → 20%CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL & FAMLY SVS: $10k → 10%CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL & FAMLY SVS: $10k → 10%CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL & FAMLY SVS: $8k → 10%CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL & FAMLY SVS: $7k → 10%NEW BRAUNFELS ANGELS: $5k → 10%NEW BRAUNFELS ANGELS: $5k → 10%CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL & FAMILY SVS: $4k → 10%CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL & FAMILY SVS: $4k → 10%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.

64%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$161k · 5 repeat orgs$93k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +16% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
7

Total granted

$161k
$80k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+14%

Still filing today

60%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 53% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesInternationalFood & NutritionEducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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
    COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS
    8× · 2018–2025 · $51k
  • CI
    CONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY SERVICES INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $43k · revenue +16%
  • M
    MAKARIOS
    6× · 2018–2023 · $38k · revenue -27%

Funded once

  • KC
    KIMBLE COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS
    one grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue +17%
  • CC
    COMAL COUNTY FAMILY VIOLENCE SHELTER
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +14%
  • NB
    New Braunfels Youth Collaborative
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
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
Childrens Advocacy Center of Van Zandt County Inc

The children's advocacy center of van zandt county is committed to ensuring quality services and support to those children impacted by abuse while also building a future where no child in van zandt county experiences abuse.

Human Services
2
Casa of South Texas Inc

Child Advocacy

Human Services
3
Texas Center for Child and Family Studies

To strengthen the lives of children and families.

Human Services
4
San Antonio Foster Care and Adoption and Services

San antonio foster care and adoption services inc. is a licensed child placement agency in the state of texas. the organization cares for children placed in foster care by the state of texas.

Human Services
5
District 7 Fire & Rescue Vfd

To provide fire and emergency services for the citizens who reside within the emergency services district no. 7's boundaries located within the unincorporated areas of bexar county, texas.

Public Safety & Disaster
6
Brazoria County Alliance for Children Inc

Aid abused and neglected children in brazoria county, texas

Human Services
7
TogetherAustin

To connect Central Texans to resources by reducing barriers expanding access and filling gaps in service.

Education
8
Children's Hospital Association of Texas

To advance children's health and well-being by advocating for policies and funding that promote children's access to high-quality, comprehensive health care.

—
9
Central Texas Children's Home

To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.

Human Services
10
Lubbock Family Outreach Center Inc Dba Family Guidance & Outreach Center

The Family Guidance & Outreach Center of Lubbock is dedicated to the prevention of child abuse and neglect and supporting, mentoring, and educating parents.

Human Services
11
Texas Foster Care & Adoption Serv

A state of texas licensed foster care and adoption agency that identifies and provides approved healing foster homes for children.

Human Services
12
Children's Aid Society of West Tx Inc

To provide shelter, supervision, and counseling for children in crisis; to cooperate with other agencies in order to resolve problems related to the welfare of these children; to assist the families of these children in seeking possible…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Childrens Bereavement Center of South Texas; the most unlike its peers is Lake Ivie Volunteer Fire Department. 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

10 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. 10 of the 15 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS: $50,500 · OtherCOMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLSRIVER CITY CHURCH: $20,000 · OtherRIVER CITY CHURCHCOMAL COUNTY FAMILY VIOLENCE SHELTER: $10,000 · OtherCOMAL COUNTY FAMILY VIOLENCE SHELTERGEORGETOWN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $8,000 · OtherGEORGETOWN UNITED METHODIST CHURCHSAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATION: $7,500 · OtherSAN ANTONIO AREA FOUNDATIONFAMILY PROMISE OF NEW BRAUNFELS: $7,000 · OtherFAMILY PROMISE OF NEW BRAUNFELSCONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY SERVICES INC: $43,000 · Human ServicesCONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL AND FA…LAKE IVIE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $10,000 · Human ServicesLAKE IVIE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPA…TRANSFORMATIONS BY AUSTIN ANGELS: $10,000 · Human ServicesTRANSFORMATIONS BY AUSTIN ANG…CHILDRENS BEREAVEMENT CENTER OF SOUTH TEXAS: $5,000 · Human ServicesCHILDRENS BEREAVEMENT CENTER …MAKARIOS: $37,500 · InternationalMAKARIOSKIMBLE COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $30,000 · Food & NutritionKIMBLE COUNTY…New Braunfels Youth Collaborative: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE TEXAS HILL COUNTRY INC: $7,500 · PhilanthropyTexas A&M Foundation: $5,000 · Education
Other$103,000Human Services$68,000International$37,500Food & Nutrition$30,000Youth Development$10,000Philanthropy$7,500Education$5,000

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 budgetCONNECTIONS INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY SERVICES INC: $43,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetMAKARIOS: $37,500 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetKIMBLE COUNTY MEALS ON WHEELS: $30,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetCOMAL COUNTY FAMILY VIOLENCE SHELTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNew Braunfels Youth Collaborative: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTRANSFORMATIONS BY AUSTIN ANGELS: $10,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE TEXAS HILL COUNTRY INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

United Way of Comal C…McKenna FoundationNew Braunfels Area Co…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Comal CountyTX13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Comal County · McKenna Foundation · New Braunfels Area Community Foundation · 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 The McBryde Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The McBryde Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s 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 · 0–5%
    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 15 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-PF 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 McBryde’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