Loading…
· Public charity
THE WINE & FOOD FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
All activities involve food and wine related education, events, seminars, and other activities directly related to the publics awareness of the uses of food and wine or raising money for the community.
$74k
Granted FY2025
4
Grants
1
Communities
$25k
Largest
01What you fund
0170% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.
Food & Nutrition$75kArts & Culture$70kYouth Development$52kCivil Rights$45kCrime & Legal$7kAnimals$7kOther$110k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2020
culinary
2021
—
2022
—
2023
—
2024
—
2025
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2025 · 4 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
- SUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER$25,000
- CARITAS OF AUSTIN$15,000
- KEEP AUSTIN FED$12,500
- SUNDAY LUNCHBOX$12,000
02The need
04
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.
show:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 13%. 20% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
64%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$235k · 4 repeat orgs$131k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +32% since the first grant, against +30% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
4
5
Total granted
$235k
$104k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+32%
+30%
Still filing today
100%
80%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 58% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Food & NutritionArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentCrime & LegalCivil RightsAnimalsOther
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
- SFSUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER3× · 2023–2025 · $75k · revenue +32%
- KAKEEP AUSTIN FED3× · 2023–2025 · $63k · revenue +101%
- URURBAN ROOTS2× · 2017–2023 · $52k · revenue +2%
Funded once
- SSSOUTHERN SMOKEgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $70k · revenue +443%
- TATEXAS A&M AGRILIFE EXTENSIONone grant, 2017 · $10k
- AFAUSTIN FOOD & WINE ALLIANCEone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +5%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
Good Work Austin
Good Work Austin's mission is to foster healthy careers in the local food and beverage industry through professional development and advocacy for more equitable practices.
Public Benefit
2
Texas Center for Local Food
The Texas Center for Local Food provides education, research, and technical assistance to create regional food systems in Texas that support prosperous family farms, healthy Texans and vibrant rural economies.
Human Services
3
Farmshare Austin
Farmshare austin's mission is to grow a healthy, just, and equitable local food system by increasing community food access and cultivating new farmers.
Food & Nutrition
4
Food Bank of West Central Texas
To procure and distribute nutritional food to qualified agencies that feed the hungry of West Central Texas.
Food & Nutrition
5
Feeding Texas
To lead a unified effort for a hunger-free texas.
Community Improvement
6
The Wine & Food Foundation of Texas
All activities involve food and wine related education, events, seminars, and other activities directly related to the publics awareness of the uses of food and wine or raising money for the community.
Philanthropy
7
A Well-Fed World
A global hunger relief food security and climate advocacy organization providing grants and research to advance plant-based foods and farming.
Food & Nutrition
8
Farm and City
Farm&City is an independent 501c3 think & do tank dedicated to high quality urban & rural human habitat in Texas in perpetuity. We improve public policies to improve millions of Texans lives in ways that preserve and enhance Texas land,…
Education
9
Austin Economic Development Corporation
The Austin Economic Development Corporation stewards public and private real estate assets to create inclusive community benefits and equitable economic outcomes for Austin.
Community Improvement
10
Second Chance Foods Inc
Second Chance Foods (SCF or the Organization) is dedicated to reducing food waste by rescuing food that would otherwise be discarded, reducing hunger on a local basis while elevating the health of those served by the program, and reducing…
Food & Nutrition
11
Leadership Austin
Leadership austin connects and develops leaders to courageously engage and transform our communities.
Youth Development
12
Raise Texas
RAISE Texas advances equitable policies and programs that foster financial security and economic mobility for low- and moderate-income Texans. We equip, innovate and advocate to reduce disparities, remove barriers and build opportunities…
Human Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Austin Youth & Community Farm Inc and the most unlike its peers is Grace Campus. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
10 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$110,000Food & Nutrition$74,500Arts & Culture$70,130Youth Development$52,450Civil Rights$45,000Crime & Legal$7,000Animals$6,638
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.
Austin Community Foundation IncTX15.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Austin Community Foundation Inc · Better Business Bureau · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 organisation THE WINE & FOOD FOUNDATION OF TEXAS 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: LIFT COLLECTIVE.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
4 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 833539183 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on LIFT COLLECTIVE, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 19% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to The Wine & Food Foundation of Texas?
Find your warmest path to The Wine & Food Foundation of Texas through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines