Skip to content

· Public charity

United Way of Parker County

To activate community resources through fundraising efforts to make the greatest possible community impact

$60k
Granted FY2026still arriving
5
Grants FY2026still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it funds
0180% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$814kFood & Nutrition$185kCrime & Legal$130kHousing & Shelter$112kHealth$70kOther$0
02FY2026 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $50,550, the rows itemized in this filing. The $59,610 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,060 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 · FY2026

  • Under $10k4 grants · $36k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $15k
$9,375
Median grant
1
States reached
$290k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SANCTIFIED HOPE$15,000
CENTER OF HOPE$9,450
PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING$9,375
MANNA STOREHOUSE$8,850
Individual grant recipient$7,875
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 (FY17–26, $1.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 1% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%CENTER OF HOPE: $53k → 8%TEXAS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES: $10k → 16%CENTER OF HOPE: $45k → 8%CENTER OF HOPE: $45k → 8%CENTER OF HOPE: $45k → 8%CENTER OF HOPE: $41k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $41k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $39k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $39k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $37k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $37k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $35k → 8%CENTER OF HOPE: $34k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $33k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $31k → 8%CENTER OF HOPE: $29k → 8%CENTER OF HOPE: $28k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $28k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $27k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $25k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $25k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $24k → 8%CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES BOARD: $23k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $22k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $22k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $21k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $21k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $21k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $20k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $20k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $17k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $15k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $15k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $12k → 8%CENTER OF HOPE: $9k → 8%PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING: $9k → 8%MANNA STOREHOUSE: $9k → 8%CASA: $8k → 8%FREEDOM HOUSE: $6k → 8%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 10 repeat orgs$67k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against +39% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2026, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
5

Total granted

$1.5M
$67k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+39%

Still filing today

60%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
Human ServicesHealthHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • PC
    PARKER COUNTY CENTER OF HOPE INC
    9× · 2017–2026 · $329k · revenue +45%
  • MS
    MANNA STOREHOUSE INC
    10× · 2017–2026 · $303k · revenue +153%
  • PC
    PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING INC
    9× · 2017–2026 · $182k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • PC
    PARKER COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERV
    one grant, 2017 · $23k · revenue -14%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $14k
  • PM
    PCCA MEALS ON WHEELS
    one grant, 2024 · $12k
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
Family Promise of Collin County

Family promise is part of a national organization that provides food, shelter, and support services during resettlement of homeless families in church facilities and temporary housing. we also provide cars for our guests to drive to work…

Human Services
2
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
3
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Milam County
—
4
Casa of Harrison County

To provide trained court appointed volunteers to serve as advocates for the best interests of abused and neglected children in harrison county texas

Youth Development
5
Polk County House of Hope

Provides immediate and long term safety to victims and their families through a hotline,victim services, emergency shelter or placement in a safe facility and connection to community resources.

Crime & Legal
6
Shelter Agencies for Families in East Texas

To provide shelter to abused families.

Human Services
7
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
8
Casa of Tipton County

Child Advocacy Services

Crime & Legal
9
Christian Care

Provide meals, clothing, counseling, referrals, spiritual guidance and shelter to anyone in need without charge

Housing & Shelter
10
Court Appointed Special Advocates Casa of Liberty/Chambers Counties

None

Human Services
11
Crisis Assistance Center Inc dba Community Assistance Center

To provide emergency assistance to people in Montgomery County, TX who are in an unexpected crisis.

Human Services
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Freedom House; the most unlike its peers is Sanctified Hope Inc. 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

9 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 9 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PARKER COUNTY CENTER OF HOPE INC: $329,077 · Human ServicesPARKER COUNTY CENTER OF HOPE INCMANNA STOREHOUSE INC: $302,866 · Human ServicesMANNA STOREHOUSE INCPARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING INC: $181,668 · Human ServicesPARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING INCFREEDOM HOUSE: $167,570 · Human ServicesFREEDOM HOUSE+3 more: $41,087 · Human ServicesIndividual grant recipient: $146,223 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $90,196 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCASA: $78,309 · OtherCASACHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $43,244 · OtherCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERIndividual grant recipient: $13,761 · Other+1 more: $12,450 · OtherSANCTIFIED HOPE INC: $127,240 · Housing & ShelterCANCER CARE SERVICES: $69,649 · Health
Human Services$1,022,268Other$384,183Housing & Shelter$127,240Health$69,649

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPARKER COUNTY CENTER OF HOPE INC: $329,077 over 9y, 1.9% of budgetMANNA STOREHOUSE INC: $302,866 over 10y, 10.0% of budgetPARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING INC: $181,668 over 9y, 4.6% of budgetFREEDOM HOUSE: $167,570 over 8y, 3.1% of budgetSANCTIFIED HOPE INC: $127,240 over 7y, 9.3% of budgetCANCER CARE SERVICES: $69,649 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetPARKER COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERV: $23,109 over 1y, 18% of budgetTEXAS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES: $9,799 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCASA HOPE FOR CHILDREN INC: $8,179 over 1y, 1.6% 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 PARKER COUNTY CENTER OF HOPE INC ↗
  • Who funds MANNA STOREHOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds PARKER COUNTY COMMITTEE ON AGING INC ↗
  • Who funds FREEDOM HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds SANCTIFIED HOPE INC ↗
  • Who funds CANCER CARE SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds PARKER COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERV ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds CASA HOPE FOR CHILDREN INC ↗

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.

Parker County Health FoundationTX17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Parker County Health Foundation · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · 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 Parker County funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Way of Parker County. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
    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 e-file return for fiscal year 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on United Way of Parker County’s filings →

    More from the funding graph