· Private foundation
Heartspace Initiative
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ACH Child and Family Services | $957 |
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 (FY20–23, $499k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% 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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 9% of Heartspace Initiative’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 95% of the giving stays in TX; read by stated purpose it is 86% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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 +20% since the first grant, against -4% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 1 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; $957 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
- MVMHMR VISIONS DBA MHMR FOUNDATION3× · 2020–2022 · $260k · revenue +114%
- GCGILL CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC3× · 2020–2022 · $90k · revenue +39%
- PIPEDIPLACE INC2× · 2021–2022 · $60k · revenue +6%
Funded once
- VRVALOR RANCHone grant, 2020 · $175k · revenue -42% · 75% of their budget
- BPBochy's Placeone grant, 2020 · $59k
- TTraffick911graduatedone grant, 2021 · $30k · revenue +33%
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.
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.
Provide food and clothing to homeless in Dallas and Carrolton area
When care is within reach, lives change. Texas Community Counseling is a faith-based nonprofit committed to bringing hope and healing through mental health care to the communities that need it the most. We empower individuals to heal,…
Provide donated items to families
The Needful Things Outreach Program expanded its impact in 2025 by providing consistent high volume support to individuals and families experiencing homelessness or financial hardship. Each Saturday, we distributed fresh fruits,…
ATX Helps was created to fill gaps in the spectrum of services available to people in Austin who are experiencing homelessness.
To serve those less fortunate and honor veterans
Together We Thrive aims to connect vulnerable homeless foster and sex-trafficked youth across North Texas with their community. We commit to walk beside these youth while helping them rewrite their future. We seek to replace labels of…
Pathways' mission is: transforming lives, families and communities.
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hope Supply Co and the most unlike its peers is Foster Kids Charity. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 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. 18 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 MHMR VISIONS DBA MHMR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds VALOR RANCH ↗
- Who funds NEW TRANSITIONS CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds GILL CHILDREN'S SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds HOPE SUPPLY CO ↗
- Who funds PEDIPLACE INC ↗
- Who funds HEROES AND HORSES INC ↗
- Who funds FOSTER KIDS CHARITY ↗
- Who funds Traffick911 ↗
- Who funds BRIGHTER TOMORROWS INC ↗
- Who funds Youth With Faces ↗
- Who funds HOME POINT ↗
- Who funds HUGS CAFE INC ↗
- Who funds I LOOK LIKE LOVE INC ↗
- Who funds CARTERS HOUSE ↗
- Who funds Community Partners of Denton County INC ↗
- Who funds SAFEHAVEN OF TARRANT COUNTY ↗
- Who funds ACH CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ↗
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 · The Rees-Jones Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Dallas Inc · The Dallas Foundation · Dallas Mavericks Foundation · W P & Bulah Luse Foundation · National Life Group Charitable Foundation Inc · Texas Women's Foundation · Community Foundation of North Texas (Tax · Texas Instruments Foundation · Teb Foundation Inc · Patrick & Beatrice Haggerty 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 Heartspace Initiative 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 Heartspace Initiative?
Find your warmest path to Heartspace Initiative 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.