Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

United Way of Northern Cameron County

To provide support for various community organizations.

$153k
Granted FY2023
11
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$33k
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 51% of UNITED WAY OF NORTHERN CAMERON COUNTY’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2023 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k4 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $133k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$531k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN$33,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN BENITO$30,000
LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV$20,000
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER$20,000
FAMILY CRISIS CENTER$10,000
GIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER SOUTH TEXAS$10,000
THE SALVATION ARMY$10,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$5,000
RIO GRANDE COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA$5,000
VALLEY AIDS COUNCIL$5,000
LITERACY CENTER OF HARLINGEN$5,000
02The need
03

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:

Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $371k) land where the poverty rate runs at 23%, against an area that typically sits at 26%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 26%LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV: $46k → 23%LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV: $43k → 23%LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV: $43k → 23%LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV: $41k → 23%LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV: $22k → 23%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $21k → 23%LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV: $20k → 23%LOAVES & FISHES OF THE RGV: $20k → 23%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $20k → 23%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $19k → 23%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $18k → 23%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $17k → 23%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $10k → 23%FAMILY CRISIS CENTER: $10k → 23%CHILDREN'S BEREAVEMENT CENTER: $10k → 23%RED CROSS: $5k → 23%RED CROSS: $5k → 23%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 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.

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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.3M · 14 repeat orgs$30k 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 -6% for the ones you funded once.

14 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2023, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
1

Total granted

$1.3M
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%
-6%

Still filing today

93%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Human ServicesCrime & LegalAnimalsYouth DevelopmentEducationHealthOther

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

  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN
    7× · 2017–2023 · $314k · revenue +32%
  • LA
    LOAVES AND FISHES OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $235k · revenue +5%
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SAN BENITO
    7× · 2017–2023 · $204k · revenue +88%

Funded once

  • TC
    THE CHILDREN'S BEREAVEMENT CENTER OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY INC
    2× · 2020–2023 · $10k · revenue -6%

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
Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston's mission is to inspire and enable all youth, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

Youth Development
2
Boys & Girls Clubs of Harrison County Inc

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
3
Boys and Girls Club of Placer County

To inspire and empower all young people who pass through our doors to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens.

4
Boys & Girls Club of the Red River Valle y

To promote the health, social, educational, vocational and character development of youth in and around Lamar County, Texas.

5
Boys & Girls Club of Coachella Valley

To save and enhance the lives of the young people of our community, especially those with economic and or social needs, by offering a safe haven and meaningful youth development programs provided by a caring and qualified staff.

Youth Development
6
Boys & Girls Club of Zapata County Inc

Provide activities for children to help youths of all backgrounds, with special concern for those from disadvantaged circumstances, develop the qualities needed to become responsible citizens / leaders.

Youth Development
7
Childrens Advocacy Center of Hidalgo County Inc

The childrens advocacy center of hidalgo county, inc. provides services to abused children. services include on-site referrals for medical services. the organization follows up with authorities on efforts against the perpetrators of the…

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
Boys & Girls Clubs of Bandera County

Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.

Recreation & Sports
10
Harrison County Child Abuse Taskforce in C

The hero's haven child advocacy center is a child-focused, facility-based program where forensic interviews of children sexually abused by out-of-home perpetrators, or where there is a cooperative parent/custodian, are conducted, where…

11
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Lowcountry Inc

To provide guidance to youth.

12
Boys and Girls Clubs of Huntington Valley

To provide general, after school and day care, recreational, educational and social services for youths 2 through 18.

Youth Development

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Children's Bereavement Center of the Rio Grande Valley Inc and the most unlike its peers is Rio Grande Habitat for Humanityinc. 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

15 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 16 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
13/15
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN — $314,006 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGENBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SAN BENITO — $203,638 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SAN BENITOGIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER SOUTH TEXAS — $69,112 · OtherGIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER SOUTH TEXASTHE SALVATION ARMY — $56,904 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYRIO GRANDE HABITAT FOR HUMANITYINC — $38,312 · OtherRIO GRANDE HABITAT FOR HUMANITYINC+1 more — $10,000 · OtherLOAVES AND FISHES OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY INC — $235,076 · Human ServicesLOAVES AND FISHES OF THE RIO GR…FAMILY CRISIS CENTER INC — $115,480 · Human ServicesFAMILY CRISIS CENTER INC+2 more — $20,000 · Human Services+2 moreCAMERON COUNTY CHILDREN ADVOCACY CENTER INC — $83,433 · Crime & LegalHARLINGEN NEIGHBORHOOD FOOD PANTRY — $70,464 · AnimalsBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA — $47,945 · Youth DevelopmentLITERACY CENTER OF HARLINGEN — $37,912 · EducationVALLEY AIDS COUNCIL — $27,333 · HealthCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF GREATER WEST TEXAS — $20,000 · Civil Rights
Other$691,972Human Services$370,556Crime & Legal$83,433Animals$70,464Youth Development$47,945Education$37,912Health$27,333Civil Rights$20,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN — $314,006 over 7y, 4.7% of budgetLOAVES AND FISHES OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY INC — $235,076 over 7y, 4.7% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SAN BENITO — $203,638 over 7y, 25% of budgetFAMILY CRISIS CENTER INC — $115,480 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetCAMERON COUNTY CHILDREN ADVOCACY CENTER INC — $83,433 over 7y, 2.0% of budgetHARLINGEN NEIGHBORHOOD FOOD PANTRY — $70,464 over 7y, 15% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER SOUTH TEXAS — $69,112 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA — $47,945 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetRIO GRANDE HABITAT FOR HUMANITYINC — $38,312 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetLITERACY CENTER OF HARLINGEN — $37,912 over 6y, 15% of budgetVALLEY AIDS COUNCIL — $27,333 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF GREATER WEST TEXAS — $20,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches — $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budget
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.

Valley Baptist Legacy FoundationTX22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Valley Baptist Legacy Foundation · Raul Tijerina Jr Foundation · American Electric Power Foundation · Network for Good · The Bank of America Charitable 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 organization United Way of Northern Cameron County 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
2021222324
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%your 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
    7report 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, FY2024

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to United Way of Northern Cameron County?

    Find your warmest path to United Way of Northern Cameron County 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 16 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph