· Public charity
Dallas Margarita Society Inc
The dallas margarita society (dms) raises money in an effort to support the many local children's charities in the north texas community.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 16 grants below total $62,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $417,806 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $355,306 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
- Under $10k15 grants · $49k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| POETIC | $13,500 |
| Dallas Community Fellowship | $8,500 |
| Love for Kids | $6,000 |
| Project Transformation | $5,000 |
| Bridges Safehouse | $3,000 |
| Brave like Ellie | $3,000 |
| Single Parent Advocate | $3,000 |
| Wipe Out Kids' Cancer | $2,500 |
| Beacon Hill Preparatory Institute | $2,500 |
| Soul Winners for Christ Outreach | $2,500 |
| Children's Advocacy Center North Texas | $2,500 |
| Ronald Mcdonald House | $2,500 |
| For Oak Cliff | $2,500 |
| Operation Care International | $2,000 |
| Children on the Mend | $2,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $112k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 53% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +52% since the first grant, against +20% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 12 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 4 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, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $21k 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
- LFLOVE FOR KIDS INC8× · 2017–2024 · $64k · revenue +52%
- CHCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER2× · 2017–2018 · $55k · revenue +93%
- CMCHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION4× · 2019–2023 · $35k · revenue +351%
Funded once
- CFCHILDREN FIRST INCone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue -19%
- TCTHE CHILDREN FIRST FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2019 · $8k
- CDClayton Dabney Centerone grant, 2018 · $7k
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.
Provide donated items to families
A state of texas licensed foster care and adoption agency that identifies and provides approved healing foster homes for children.
Children's cancer fund champions kids in their fight against cancer through strategic investments in research and care in north texas.
Support law enforcement and promote public safety awareness and crime prevention in Fort Worth.
Sunny Glen Childrens Home, Inc. cares for children in need. Our care will be competent, compassionate and professional. We will help every child achieve their greatest potential-physically, emotionally, spiritually and academically.
Texans Care for Children shapes public policies and brings Texans together to make children a statewide priority. We work so kids can have what they need to be healthy, secure, and thriving and so every Texan can have the best start to…
To make tomorrow better than today by supporting and empowering children, youth, and families involved with child protective services.
Dallas kids first elevates dialogue on the impact of school board leadership for kids in dallas isd and supports school board elections with focus on outcomes for kids.
Fort Bend County Child Advocates, Inc. provides a voice, heals the hurt and breaks the cycle of abuse and neglect for children in Fort Bend County.
To strengthen families through parenting classes educational programs, youth programs and referral services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dallas Children's Advocacy Center and the most unlike its peers is Mgk Productions Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 23 years old; the field is 11. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 28% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 9% lost their exemption, against 17% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
32 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 DALLAS POLICE YOUTH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LOVE FOR KIDS INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PROJECT TRANSFORMATION NORTH TEXAS ↗
- Who funds Ronald McDonald House of Dallas Inc ↗
- Who funds POETIC ↗
- Who funds BRIDGES SAFEHOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds SINGLE PARENT ADVOCATE ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN FIRST INC ↗
- Who funds Brave Like Ellie ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN FIRST FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds QUEST FOR GREATER SUCCESS INC ↗
- Who funds THE BIRTHDAY PARTY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CHASE'S PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds CAMP SUMMIT INC ↗
- Who funds WIPE OUT KIDS' CANCER INC ↗
- Who funds CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ACTION ↗
- Who funds OPERATION CARE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds DALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER FOR NORTH TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds BEACON HILL PREPARATORY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds FOR OAK CLIFF ↗
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: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · United Way of Metropolitan Dallas Inc · The Dallas Foundation · The Rees-Jones Foundation · W P & Bulah Luse Foundation · Hillcrest Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · The Addy Foundation · Hoblitzelle Foundation · Theodore and Beulah Beasley Foundation Inc · Texas Women's Foundation · The Moody 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 Dallas Margarita Society Inc 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.