· Public charity
Civil Rights Corps
We work to shift power to community-led movements, particularly those led by black and brown people who are most affected by this legal system, so they can build sufficient power to create structural change.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $77,511 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $112,901 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $35,390 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 · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $19k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $59k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| URBAN JUSTICE | $58,761 |
| SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE | $18,750 |
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 (FY18–23, $283k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +93% since the first grant, against -51% for the ones you funded once.
6 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $78k 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
- WHW HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE3× · 2018–2020 · $355k · revenue +45%
- SVSilicon Valley De-Bug2× · 2018–2019 · $150k · revenue +345%
THE PRAXIS PROJECT INC2× · 2019–2021 · $125k · revenue +122%
Funded once
- SISILENCE IS VIOLENCE FKA NEW ORLEANS BAYOU STEPPERS SOCIAL AID & PLEASUREgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $150k · revenue +93% · 57% of their budget
- TOTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2019 · $80k · revenue -51%
- FIFAITH IN TEXAS - PICOone grant, 2019 · $75k · revenue -95%
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.
The Texas After Violence Project is a community-based archive and documentary project cultivating deeper understanding of state-sanctioned violence on individuals, families, and communities. Our mission is to do responsible, inclusive, and…
The Organization challenges over-criminalizationand mass incarceration through research, advocacyand organizing.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
The promise of justice initiative works to create positive change for people in the criminal legal system at the intersection of impact litigation, direct services and community engagement.
Fund for Justice is a nationally connected social impact research and advocacy organization that works to achieve fundamental, systemic reform by addressing policies and practicies that prevent individuals from reaching their full…
Transforming the narrative of criminalization: an abolitionist approach. ending the reliance on the private prison industry decarceration: advocating for policies that reduce the prison population, such as bail reform and funding…
Dignity and Power Now (DPN) is a Los Angeles based grassroots organization that fights for the dignity and power of all incarcerated people, their families, and communities. DPNs mission is to build a Black and Brown led abolitionist…
The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.
Serve as a partner, educator, and guide for philanthropy in reimagining practices that advance a thriving and just world.
See Schedule OTDS fights for the end of mass incarceration and excessive punishment in Texas through direct representation, policy reform, and public education. TDS stands up for the dignity and humanity of people harmed by mass…
The Texas Organizing Project (TOP) is an explicitly pro-Black organization working to improve the lives of working class Black and Latino Texas families by building power through community organizing and civic engagement. We are a…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Praxis Project Inc and the most unlike its peers is Transitional Housing & Work Program of Davison County. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 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.
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 W HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds TIDES FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley De-Bug ↗
- Who funds SILENCE IS VIOLENCE FKA NEW ORLEANS BAYOU STEPPERS SOCIAL AID & PLEASURE ↗
- Who funds Pure Justice ↗
- Who funds TIDES CENTER ↗
- Who funds THE PRAXIS PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds JAIL PROJECT OF TEXAS ↗
- Who funds Transitional Housing & Work Program of Davison County ↗
- Who funds PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds HOPEWELL FUND ↗
- Who funds FAITH IN TEXAS - PICO ↗
- Who funds URBAN JUSTICE CENTER ↗
- Who funds ROBERT F KENNEDY CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds OPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN VISION ALLIANCE ↗
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: The Heising-Simons Foundation · NEO Philanthropy Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Tides Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Civil Rights Corps 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 Civil Rights Corps?
Find your warmest path to Civil Rights Corps 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.