Skip to content
Proyecto Inmigrante ICS Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Proyecto Inmigrante ICS Inc

Promote strong communities empowering individuals to obtain legal status through affordable and ethical legal and educational ser- vices.

$6k
Granted FY2022
1
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Civil Rights$231kReligion$97kPublic Benefit$55kEducation$47kCrime & Legal$29kHuman Services$15kArts & Culture$14k
02FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Casa Durango$5,500
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY18–18, $15k) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Alliance For Progress: $15k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$392k · 8 repeat orgs$97k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +13% since the first grant, against -29% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2022, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
7

Total granted

$392k
$97k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
-29%

Still filing today

63%
86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’22
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’22
Civil RightsReligionEducationCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesCrime & LegalOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • MF
    MI FAMILIA EN ACCION
    3× · 2017–2019 · $46k · revenue +516%
  • WD
    WORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT
    3× · 2017–2020 · $37k · revenue +13%
  • JF
    Justice For Our Neighbors North Central Texas
    2× · 2018–2019 · $29k · revenue +482%

Funded once

  • IE
    IGLESIA EVANGELICA FILADELFIA DE PARIS
    one grant, 2019 · $20k · revenue +8%
  • TO
    TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND
    one grant, 2017 · $19k · revenue -29%
  • AF
    Alliance For Progress
    one grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue -36%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Justice for Our Neighbors El Paso

Jfon el paso is a faith-based ministry providing affordable, high-quality immigration legal services and advocating for immigrants rights in west texas and southern new mexico

—
2
Justice for All Immigrants

The mission of Justice for All Immigrants is to provide low-income individuals and families with affordable, high quality immigration legal services, and to engage in immigration education and advocacy.

Crime & Legal
3
Corpus Christi Jfon Inc

To provide low cost legal aide to immigrants

—
4
Proyecto Inmigrante Ics Inc

Promote strong communities empowering individuals to obtain legal status through affordable and ethical legal and educational ser- vices. Also promote accesible high quality professional education.

Civil Rights
5
Affordable Immigration Services

To provide affordable services to our immigrant community. We give information and advice as to how to best navigate the immigration system in the U.S.

Crime & Legal
6
Partners Serving Communities in Tex

Empower refugees and immigrants

Human Services
7
Dallas Islamic Foundation
Religion
8
Texas Justice and Education Fund

To provide legal and technical support to promote fair state legislative and congressional district boundaries in texas consistent with state and federal law.

Civil Rights
9
Immigrant Legal Services

Provide low bono & pro bono legal immigration services.

Human Services
10
Texas Doula Association
Health
11
San Antonio Region Justice for Our Neighbors

San antonio region justice for our neighors (sarjfon) provides low-income immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers affordable, high-quality immigration legal services. we provide immigrant education, help the public understand the…

—
12
Somos Tejas

To support community involvement and civic leadership within the Latino community to contribute to a thriving and engaged Texas.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mi Familia En Accion; the most unlike its peers is Opening Doors International Services Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 15 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
6/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

New Hope Immigration Services: $71,083 · OtherNew Hope Immigration ServicesLight of Hope Immigracion Law Center: $60,269 · OtherLight of Hope Immigracion Law CenterAmigos Sin Fronteras: $24,333 · OtherAmigos Sin FronterasNORTH TEXAS DREAM TEAM: $10,000 · OtherNORTH TEXAS DREAM TEAMCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF DALLAS INC: $10,000 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF DALLAS INCFAITH IN TEXAS - PICO: $77,200 · ReligionFAITH IN TEXAS - PICOIGLESIA EVANGELICA FILADELFIA DE PARIS: $19,800 · ReligionIGLESIA EVANGELICA FIL…MI FAMILIA EN ACCION: $45,583 · Civil RightsMI FAMILIA EN ACCIONJustice For Our Neighbors North Central Texas: $29,333 · Civil RightsJustice For Our Neig…REFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES: $14,333 · Civil RightsREFUGEE & IMMIGRANT …CASA DURANGO DALLAS: $47,308 · EducationCASA DURANGO DALLASWORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT: $37,183 · EducationWORKERS DEFENSE PRO…TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $19,250 · Community ImprovementAlliance For Progress: $15,000 · Human ServicesOpening Doors International Services Inc: $8,600 · Crime & Legal
Other$175,685Religion$97,000Civil Rights$89,249Education$84,491Community Improvement$19,250Human Services$15,000Crime & Legal$8,600

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10k$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFAITH IN TEXAS - PICO: $77,200 over 2y, 5.7% of budgetCASA DURANGO DALLAS: $47,308 over 5y, 100% of budgetMI FAMILIA EN ACCION: $45,583 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetWORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT: $37,183 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetJustice For Our Neighbors North Central Texas: $29,333 over 2y, 11% of budgetTEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND: $19,250 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetREFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES: $14,333 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNORTH TEXAS DREAM TEAM: $10,000 over 1y, 7.6% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF DALLAS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOpening Doors International Services Inc: $8,600 over 1y, 4.6% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Communities Foundatio…Amazonsmile Foundation
Communities Foundation of Texas IncTX12.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Proyecto Inmigrante ICS Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Proyecto Inmigrante ICS Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Proyecto Inmigrante ICS Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Proyecto Inmigrante ICS Inc 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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 15 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Proyecto Inmigrante ICS’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home