Loading…
· Public charity
Texas Center for the Judiciary Inc
The Texas Center for the Judiciary, Inc is the state's only organization funding continuing legal education programs for the state judiciary and court support personnel.
$347k
Granted FY2022
9
Grants
1
Communities
$79k
Largest
01What you fund
0167% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2022.
Crime & Legal$1.9MHuman Services$649kCivil Rights$211kEducation$14kOther$1.4M
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2020
conferenceabuse neglectstrengtheningresponse
2021
responsestrengthening
2022
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2022 · 9 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2022
- $10k–50k7 grants · $205k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $142k
$37,004
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
- CAC of Texas Inc$78,794
- TNOYS$63,216
- Texas Legal$48,541
- Garth House$39,123
- UT Health Science Center$37,004
- Harris County$34,227
- Texas CASA$17,967
- SafeAlliance$14,304
- Bexar Co Juvenile Probation$13,449
02The need
04
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY20–22, $190k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18% — the area typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$3.8M · 10 repeat orgs$339k to everyone else
10 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
10
6
Total granted
$3.8M
$339k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+44%
+58%
Still filing today
60%
50%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesCrime & LegalCivil RightsEducationOther
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
- COCAC of Texas Inc4× · 2018–2022 · $1.5M · revenue +64%
- TLTexas Legal3× · 2018–2021 · $364k · revenue +61%
- SSafeAlliance4× · 2018–2022 · $238k · revenue +38% · 43% of their budget
Funded once
- TMTEXAS MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2018 · $231k
- SHSAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2018 · $54k
- EPEl Paso Center for Children Incgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +74%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
Casa of South Texas Inc
Child Advocacy
Human Services
2
Court Appointed Special Advocates
Training and supporting quality volunteers who speak out for the best interest of abused and neglected children in court in an effort to find each child a safe, permanent, nurturing home.
Civil Rights
3
Casa of Central Texas Inc
Advocates for children
Civil Rights
4
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Hidalgo Count
To provide services for the protection of abused and neglected children that are in the custody of the State of Texas.
Civil Rights
5
Casa for Kids of South Central Texas Inc
To recruit, train and supervise volunteers that advocate in the best interests of abused and neglected children in court.
Housing & Shelter
6
Casa of Williamson County Texas
CASA of Williamson County, TX exists to empower community volunteers to advocate for children who have experienced abuse or neglect to find loving, safe, and permanent homes.
Crime & Legal
7
Children's Alliance of South Texas
To provide a neutral, child friendly organization that facilitates a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation, intervention and treatment of child abuse.
Crime & Legal
8
Court Appointed Special Advocates
To provide trained community volunteers, to advocate for the best interests of abused and neglected children, and to promote community awareness about child abuse issues.
Civil Rights
9
Northeast Texas Child Advocacy Center
To bring hope and healing while working together to break the cycle of child abuse.
Human Services
10
Lone Star Casa Inc
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…
Civil Rights
11
Texans Care for Children Inc
Texas 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 life.
Crime & Legal
12
Court Appointed Special Advocates of North Texas Inc
To provide court appointed volunteers who serve as advocates and help abused children obtain safe permanent home placements
—
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Casa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Garth House Mickey Mehaffy Childrens. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
9 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Crime & Legal$1,901,941Other$1,388,571Human Services$648,644Civil Rights$210,687Education$14,159
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.
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.
Texas Bar FoundationTX18.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Texas Bar Foundation · Meadows Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 organisation Texas Center for the Judiciary 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: SafeAlliance.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 741977853 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on SafeAlliance, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 43% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Texas Center for the Judiciary Inc?
Find your warmest path to Texas Center for the Judiciary Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines