Skip to content
United Way of Hays County at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

United Way of Hays County

Improve the quality of life throughout a broad range of education, health, and financial resources.

$109k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
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.

Human Services$282kYouth Development$194kHealth$103kCivil Rights$39kHousing & Shelter$25kRecreation & Sports$21kEducation$20kArts & Culture$19k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $90,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $109,457 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $19,457 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 $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $75k
$12,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$84k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Greater San Marcos Youth Council$25,000
San Marcos Housting Authority Resident$12,500
Salvation Army$12,500
San Marcos Youth Service Bureau$12,500
Combined Community Action$12,500
CASA of Central Texas$7,500
Any Baby Can$7,500
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 (FY17–24, $293k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Greater SMYC: $38k → 10%Combined Comm Action: $14k → 12%Combined Community Action: $13k → 12%Greater SMYC: $26k → 10%GENaustin: $6k → 10%Combined Community Action: $13k → 12%Greater San Marcos Youth Council: $25k → 10%Combined Community Action: $13k → 12%Greater San Marcos Youth Council: $25k → 10%Combined Community Action: $13k → 12%Greater San Marcos Youth Council: $25k → 10%Combined Community Action: $12k → 12%Greater San Marcos Youth Council: $24k → 10%Combined Comm Action: $10k → 12%Combined Comm Action: $10k → 12%Greater SMYC: $16k → 10%Greater San Marcos Youth Council: $13k → 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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$663k · 10 repeat orgs$39k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +70% since the first grant, against +55% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
4

Total granted

$663k
$39k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
+55%

Still filing today

50%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Human ServicesCivil RightsYouth 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

  • GS
    Greater San Marcos Youth Council Inc
    8× · 2017–2024 · $192k · revenue +148%
  • CC
    COMBINED COMMUNITY ACTION INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $96k · revenue +164%
  • SM
    San Marcos Youth Service BureauInc
    7× · 2017–2024 · $71k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • SM
    SAN MARCOS CISD
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
  • TS
    TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2018 · $12k
  • GS
    GIRL SCOUTS OF CENTRAL TEXAS
    one grant, 2019 · $6k · revenue -1%
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
Guadalupe County Children's Advocacy Center

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…

Crime & Legal
2
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Milam County
—
3
Sunny Glen Children's Home Inc

Sunny Glen Childrens Home, Inc. cares for children in need. Our care will be competent, compassionate and professional. We will help every child achieve their greatest potential-physically, emotionally, spiritually and academically.

Human Services
4
Greater East Austin Youth Assn

Provide services to atrisk yout

—
5
Casa of South Texas Inc

Child Advocacy

Human Services
6
South Texas Pregnancy Care Center

Crisis pregnancy counseling.

Health
7
Bluebonnet Childrens Center

To protect and enhance the quality of life for abused and neglected children in Medina, Real and Uvalde Counties of Texas.

Crime & Legal
8
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Hidalgo Count

To provide services for the protection of abused and neglected children that are in the custody of the State of Texas.

Civil Rights
9
Girl Scouts of San Jacinto Council

Girl Scouting builds girls of courage, confidence, and character who make the world a better place.

Youth Development
10
Court Appointed Special Advocates in the Heart of Texas

Training and supporting quality volunteers who speak out for the best interest of abused and neglected children in court in an effort to find each child a safe, permanent, nurturing home.

Civil Rights
11
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
12
Lone Star Casa Inc

Lone Star CASA elevates the voices of children in Kaufman and Rockwall County who have experienced abuse and neglect by providing trained volunteer advocates to work alongside children and families so they can achieve safety and stability…

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Girl Scouts of Central Texas; the most unlike its peers is San Marcos Youth Service BureauInc. 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

8 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. 8 of the 14 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

San Marcos Youth Service BureauInc: $70,500 · OtherSan Marcos Youth Service BureauIncTHE SALVATION ARMY: $61,400 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYSAN MARCOS HOUSING AUTHORITY: $56,050 · OtherSAN MARCOS HOUSING AUTHORITYHCCADA: $53,350 · OtherHCCADAHays County Homespun ECI: $49,899 · OtherHays County Homespun ECICITY OF SAN MARCOS: $31,250 · OtherCITY OF SAN MARCOSANY BABY CAN OF AUSTIN INC: $15,150 · OtherSAN MARCOS CISD: $15,000 · Other+1 more: $11,800 · OtherGreater San Marcos Youth Council Inc: $191,600 · Human ServicesGreater San Marcos Youth Council IncCOMBINED COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $95,650 · Human ServicesCOMBINED COMMUNITY ACTION INC+1 more: $5,700 · Human ServicesCASA of Central Texas Inc: $38,650 · Civil RightsGIRL SCOUTS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $6,450 · Youth Development
Other$364,399Human Services$292,950Civil Rights$38,650Youth Development$6,450

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGreater San Marcos Youth Council Inc: $191,600 over 8y, 3.5% of budgetCOMBINED COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $95,650 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetSan Marcos Youth Service BureauInc: $70,500 over 7y, 17% of budgetHays County Homespun ECI: $49,899 over 5y, 28% of budgetCASA of Central Texas Inc: $38,650 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetANY BABY CAN OF AUSTIN INC: $15,150 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $6,450 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGENAUSTIN: $5,700 over 1y, 0.4% 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 Greater San Marcos Youth Council Inc ↗
  • Who funds COMBINED COMMUNITY ACTION INC ↗
  • Who funds San Marcos Youth Service BureauInc ↗
  • Who funds Hays County Homespun ECI ↗
  • Who funds CASA of Central Texas Inc ↗
  • Who funds ANY BABY CAN OF AUSTIN INC ↗
  • Who funds GIRL SCOUTS OF CENTRAL TEXAS ↗
  • Who funds GENAUSTIN ↗

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.

San Marcos Lions Inte…United Way for Greate…Austin Community Foun…The Burdine Johnson F…St David's FoundationThe Blackbaud Giving …The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
San Marcos Lions InternationalTX17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: San Marcos Lions International · United Way for Greater Austin · Austin Community Foundation Inc · The Burdine Johnson Foundation · St David's Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 United Way of Hays County funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Way of Hays County. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 14 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 United Way of Hays County’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