· Public charity
Texans for Lawsuit Reform
See Schedule OTLR works to shape policy primarily in the Texas civil justice and court system through public education, legislative advocacy and building broad public support for a fair, competent and honest judiciary as well as a fair, balanced and predictable dispute resolution system.
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 11 grants below total $423,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $480,765 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $57,265 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–50k10 grants · $174k
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Coalition for Regulatory Efficiency & Reform | $250,000 |
| Lone Star Economic Alliance | $35,000 |
| Texas Conservative Coalition | $21,000 |
| Texas House Republican Caucus | $20,000 |
| Texas Tribune Inc | $20,000 |
| Texas State History Museum Foundation | $15,000 |
| Texas Southern University Foundation | $15,000 |
| Texas Business Leadership Council | $15,000 |
| Texas Young Republican Federation | $12,500 |
| University of Texas | $10,000 |
| Texas Senate Republican Caucus | $10,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 36% of your 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.
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 +48% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
7 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 6 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, 20% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $340k 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
- TCTexas Conservative Coalition Research Institute8× · 2017–2024 · $202k · revenue +101%
- TBTEXAS BUSINESS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL8× · 2017–2024 · $93k · revenue +74%
- RGRIO GRANDE VALLEY PARTNERSHIP2× · 2018–2022 · $30k · revenue +48%
Funded once
- TCTEXAS CITIZENS AGAINST LAWSUIT ABUSE INone grant, 2017 · $68k · revenue -93% · 97% of their budget
- RCRoss Communicationsone grant, 2017 · $30k
- TITexas Inaugural Committeeone grant, 2018 · $25k
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 blockchain council is a nonprofit industry association made up of companies and individuals that work in a variety of industries that are connected to bitcoin, crypto and blockchain technology. we are working together tomake the…
To advance and sustain interests in the state of Texas with an emphasis on increasing transparency and improving transparency in education within Texas.
To represent venture capital firms before texas legislature, state securities board and regulatory agencies and to provide a forum to exchange ideas, concepts and information.
To enhance the professional growth of chamber professionals.
Jobs for Texas (JFT) brings together all sectors of the Texas business and economic development community under one umbrella to undertake legislative initiatives that require a coordinated statewide effort. Unlike other industry, trade,…
Promote the restaurant industry
The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.
See Schedule OTLR works to shape policy primarily in the Texas civil justice and court system through public education, legislative advocacy and building broad public support for a fair, competent and honest judiciary as well as a fair,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Public Policy Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Rio Grande Valley Partnership. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 27 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 COALITION FOR REGULATORY EFFICIENCY AND REFORM ↗
- Who funds Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS ↗
- Who funds TEXAS BUSINESS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds TEXAS CITIZENS AGAINST LAWSUIT ABUSE IN ↗
- Who funds TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIO ↗
- Who funds Keep Texas Trucking Coalition dba Lone Star Economic Alliance ↗
- Who funds RIO GRANDE VALLEY PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds Texas Cultural Trust Council ↗
- Who funds TEXAS TRIBUNE INC ↗
- Who funds Texas Business Hall of Fame Foundation ↗
- Who funds TEXAS STATE HISTORY MUSEUM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ↗
- Who funds BAY AREA CITIZENS AGAINST LAWSUIT ABUSE ↗
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: Greater Houston Community Foundation · Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Texans for Lawsuit Reform 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 Texans for Lawsuit Reform?
Find your warmest path to Texans for Lawsuit Reform 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.