Skip to content

· Private foundation

Vargas Foundation

$19k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Religion$15kHuman Services$11kAnimals$9kFood & Nutrition$2kPhilanthropy$2kEducation$2kPublic Safety & Disaster$1kHealth$1k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$22k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CATHOLIC CHARITIES$5,000
ST THOMAS THE APOSTLE CHURCH$5,000
PUERTO RICO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$2,000
POTTER SCHOOL DONATION - CLINTON$1,165
COMMUNITY LINK MISSION$1,040
OPERATION KINDNESS$1,000
OPERATION KINDNESS$1,000
HUMANE SOCIETY OF NORTH TEXAS$1,000
SPAY AND NEUTER NETWORK$500
KNUCKLE BUMP FARMS FOUNDATION$500
PETSMART CHARITIES$500
EAGLE MOUNTAIN SAGINAW SCHOOL DISTRICT$402
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 (FY21–21, $1k) 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%GRAPEVINE RELIEF AND COMMUNITY EXCHAGE: $1k → 11%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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$30k · 7 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
5

Total granted

$30k
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+4%
+55%

Still filing today

86%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’24’25
AnimalsFood & NutritionHuman ServicesOther
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

  • CC
    CATHOLIC CHARITIES INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $10k · revenue +4%
  • CL
    COMMUNITY LINK MISSION INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $2k · revenue +12%
  • PC
    PETSMART CHARITIES INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $1k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • CC
    CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA
    one grant, 2021 · $5k
  • GR
    GRAPEVINE RELIEF AND COMMUNITY EXCHANGEgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +55%
  • IM
    INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL AIR EVACUATION
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
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
Kind Keeper Inc

Our mission is to save the lives of homeless pets, promote kindness to animals, and advance the highest standards in animal welfare. Our goal is to create an environment in which all rescued animals are given or found a permanent loving…

Animals
2
Dfw Humane Society of Irving Inc

Provide food, shelter and care for homeless, unwanted, pets. give pets a second chance by adoption. pay medical bills incoming injured animals, assist pet owners with free spay/neuter and medical appointments at veterinarians. educate thr…

Animals
3
Pet Community Center Inc

Pet community center's mission is to strengthen the human-animal bond through accessible veterinary care and support services.

Animals
4
Pet Pal Rescue Inc

Our mission is to rescue animals from animal shelters that may otherwise be euthanized due to time limitations, illness, injuries or lack of socialization and training.

—
5
One Tail At a Time West Texas

One tail at a time west texas otat wtx serves the rural communities of west texas by supporting animal shelter operations rescuing and sheltering homeless unwanted companion animals dogs and cats primarily arranging their veterinary care…

Animals
6
Pet Network Humane Society

Pet Network rescues adoptable animals from euthanasia, connects abandoned animals with loving families, instills respect for animals through humane education, and enhances lives through animal companionship.

Animals
7
Central Texas Spca

Rescue neglected, unwanted homeless dogs and cats nurture and provide shelter until they are placed with a forever family strive to reduce animal overpopulation prevent cruelty to animals teach responsible pet ownership through an outreach…

Animals
8
Houston Pets Alive

Houston Pets Alive!s (HPA!) mission is to save the lives of at-risk companion cats and dogs and find them loving homes.

Animals
9
Humane Society of Greater Miami-Dade for Pocta Aap

Matching furry friends with their purr-fect homes & offering affordable spay/neuter.

Animals
10
Spay & Neuter Kansas City D/B/a Pet Resource Center of Kansas City

To decrease pet homelessness, increase pet retention and improve the quality of life for pets through education and supportive services for families in need.

Animals
11
Take Paws Rescue

The mission of take paws rescue is to meet the moral obligation to protect and save the lives of pets in need of rescue in louisiana. take paws rescue enacts this mission by pulling pets from rural and high kill shelters and preparing them…

Animals
12
Petluv Non Profit Corporation

Provide low-cost dog and cat spaying and neutering provide shelter, food, and vet care for abandoned animals provide low-cost/no-cost spaying and neutering for feral cats

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Petsmart Charities Inc; the most unlike its peers is Puerto Rico Community Foundation 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 16 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST THOMAS THE APOSTLE CHURCH: $10,000 · OtherST THOMAS THE APOSTLE CHURCHCATHOLIC CHARITIES INC: $10,000 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIES INCCATHOLIC CHARITIES USA: $5,000 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIES USAPOTTER SCHOOL DONATION - CLINTON: $1,165 · OtherINTERNATIONAL MEDICAL AIR EVACUATION: $1,000 · OtherMARIA FERNANDA APARICIO MUNIOZ: $1,000 · Other+2 more: $902 · OtherOPERATION KINDNESS: $3,030 · AnimalsOPERATION KINDNESSHumane Society of North Texas: $2,040 · AnimalsHumane Society of Nor…KNUCKLE BUMP FARMS FOUNDATION INC: $1,540 · AnimalsKNUCKLE BUMP FARMS FO…PETSMART CHARITIES INC: $1,000 · AnimalsPETSMART CHARITIES IN…SPAY NEUTER NETWORK: $538 · AnimalsSPAY NEUTER NETWORKCOMMUNITY LINK MISSION INC: $2,080 · Food & NutritionPUERTO RICO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 · PhilanthropyGRAPEVINE RELIEF AND COMMUNITY EXCHANGE: $1,000 · Human Services
Other$29,067Animals$8,148Food & Nutrition$2,080Philanthropy$2,000Human Services$1,000

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 budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetOPERATION KINDNESS: $3,030 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY LINK MISSION INC: $2,080 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHumane Society of North Texas: $2,040 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKNUCKLE BUMP FARMS FOUNDATION INC: $1,540 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetGRAPEVINE RELIEF AND COMMUNITY EXCHANGE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPETSMART CHARITIES INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSPAY NEUTER NETWORK: $538 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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Vargas Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Vargas Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%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
    1get no government money at all
    4report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Vargas Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Vargas Foundation 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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 16 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 Vargas’ filings →

    More from the funding graph