· Private foundation
Doswell Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k8 grants · $170k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $739k
- $250k+4 grants · $3.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NEXUS RECOVERY CENTER | $2,053,487 |
| TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY | $750,000 |
| THE BRIDGE | $300,000 |
| TWELFTH STEP MINISTRIES | $270,000 |
| DALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY | $150,000 |
| DALLAS CASA | $148,698 |
| HOPE COTTAGE | $140,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY | $125,000 |
| TEXAS TECH HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER | $100,000 |
| VICTORY THERAPY CENTER | $75,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $45,000 |
| CLARENDON COLLEGE | $25,000 |
| THE ART OF LIVING | $20,000 |
| THE SENIOR SOURCE | $20,000 |
| EXODUS MINISTRIES | $20,000 |
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 (FY20–24, $4.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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 +28% since the first grant, against -57% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 3 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, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.1M 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
- NRNexus Recovery Center Incorporated5× · 2020–2024 · $3.5M · revenue +46%
- TBTHE BRIDGE5× · 2020–2024 · $2.5M · revenue +44% · 68% of their budget
- DCDALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER5× · 2020–2024 · $775k · revenue +28%
Funded once
- YBYOUTH BELIEVING IN CHANGE INCone grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue -57%
- TSTHE STEWPOTone grant, 2023 · $10k
- LLLEUKEMIA LYMPHOMA SOCIETYone grant, 2023 · $5k
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 childrens advocacy center of hidalgo county, inc. provides services to abused children. services include on-site referrals for medical services. the organization follows up with authorities on efforts against the perpetrators of the…
The Organizations mission is to bring unity and efficiency to investigations of child abuse through the use of a multi-disciplinary team and, thereby, to provide the best possible services to victims of child abuse and their families.
Operation care international exists to glorify god. in obedience to his will, we connect impoverished children and the homeless to jesus christ providing for their physical needs through god's provision both at home and abroad.
Lone Star CASA elevates the voices of children in Kaufman and Rockwall County who have experienced abuse and neglect by providing trained volunteer advocates to work alongside children and families so they can achieve safety and stability…
To bring together community resources to speed the healing of child victims of abuse and trauma.
Our mission is to provide accessible high-quality counseling, training, psychological evaluations, and educational testing that equip our clients to grow through lifes changes and challenges.
To engage and educate communities to prevent sexual violence and to support survivors and their loved ones as they heal and thrive.
TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.
To unify services across Dallas County, to empower youth, strengthen families and build safe, healthy communities.
Divine canines therapy encourages smiles and brightens lives. to accomplish this, we recruit and train teams of dogs and their owners and organize and facilitate regular, frequent visits to residents of special care facilities.
The mission of hope's door new beginning center is to offer intervention and prevention services to individuals and families affected by intimate partner and family violence and to provide education programs that enhance the community's…
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.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dallas Children's Advocacy Center and the most unlike its peers is Art of Living Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
12 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. 12 of the 24 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 Nexus Recovery Center Incorporated ↗
- Who funds THE BRIDGE ↗
- Who funds DALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds HOPE COTTAGE INC ↗
- Who funds DALLAS CASA ↗
- Who funds VICTORY THERAPEUTIC CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds OPERATION ORPHANS INC ↗
- Who funds EXODUS MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds SENIOR CITIZENS OF GREATER DALLAS INC ↗
- Who funds Art of Living Inc ↗
- Who funds The Dallas Opera ↗
- Who funds YOUTH BELIEVING IN CHANGE INC ↗
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 Perot Foundation · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Theodore and Beulah Beasley Foundation Inc · The Rees-Jones Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · Chi Omega Education and Charity Fund of Dallas · The Ninnie L Baird Foundation · W P & Bulah Luse Foundation · The Dallas Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Endowment 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 Doswell Foundation 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 Doswell Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Doswell 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.