· Public charity
Austin Cops for Charities
To enhance community relations with austin police officers and the local community by supporting local charitable agencies.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $36,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $164,034 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $127,534 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2022
- Under $10k3 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Weatherford College | $20,000 |
| Greater Austin Crime Commission | $6,500 |
| Boys and Girls Clubs of Austin | $5,000 |
| Hope for Heroes | $5,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–19, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +63% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2022, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 32% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- DCDELL CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION2× · 2020–2021 · $15k · revenue +123%
COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS2× · 2017–2018 · $10k · revenue +203%- PFPARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN2× · 2017–2019 · $10k · revenue +63%
Funded once
- APAUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +33%
- APAUSTIN POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTAone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +5%
- AAAfrican American Youth Harvest Foundationgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +183%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
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.
The ACLU of Texas works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.
We mobilize ideas and resources to strengthen central texas.
To enhance community relations with austin police officers and the local community by supporting local charitable agencies. in addition, to support austin police officers and their families in times of need.
Leadership austin connects and develops leaders to courageously engage and transform our communities.
To equip Austinites to make informed decisions through independent, in-depth reporting, diverse opinions, and civil dialogue. A strong local press is essential for a healthy community and democracy. We work to make Austin a more empowered…
To advance children's health and well-being by advocating for policies and funding that promote children's access to high-quality, comprehensive health care.
The ACLU Foundation of Texas is the unyielding guardian and promoter of freedom, justice, equality and dignity of all people, particularly for those who are still fighting to secure the full exercise of their civil rights and liberties.…
Austin Justice Coalition educates, organizes, and empowers communities in Austin to build racial equity and dismantle systems of oppression through advocacy, policy change, and community programs.
Austin together enables sustained collaborations that strengthen the nonprofit community to create better outcomes for central texans through our unique grant and community engagement model.
Plant, protect and promote trees all over the greater Houston area.
At the Every Texan, we believe in a Texas that offers everyone the chance to compete and succeed in life. We envision a Texas where everyone is healthy, well educated, and financially secure. We want the best Texas, a proud state that sets…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dell Children's Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Testicular Cancer Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 20 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds CENTRAL TEXAS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION ↗
- Who funds HOPE FOR HEROES TEXAS ↗
- Who funds DELL CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds AUSTIN POLICE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds AUSTIN POLICE OPERATION BLUE SANTA ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS ↗
- Who funds PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds African American Youth Harvest Foundation ↗
- Who funds Austin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation ↗
- Who funds Austin Child Guidance Center ↗
- Who funds Testicular Cancer Foundation ↗
- Who funds Central Texas Food Bank Inc ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce ↗
- Who funds SUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Austin Community Foundation Inc · United Way for Greater Austin · St David's Foundation · The Moody Foundation · Topfer Family Foundation · Charles Schwab Foundation · United Way Worldwide · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 Austin Cops for Charities 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Austin Cops for Charities?
Find your warmest path to Austin Cops for Charities 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.