· 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2022
- $10k–50k7 grants · $205k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $142k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
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 (FY20–22, $190k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 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.
12 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2022, 4 since wound down.
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 FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- CACHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INC5× · 2017–2022 · $1.9M · revenue +110%
- TLTexas Legal Services Center INC3× · 2018–2021 · $364k · revenue +24%
- TSTHE SAFE ALLIANCE FACILITIES HOLDINGS5× · 2017–2022 · $291k · revenue +81% · 43% of their budget
Funded once
- SHSAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITYone grant, 2018 · $54k
- EPEL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN INCone grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +9%
- TSTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCEgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $14k · revenue +45%
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.
Child Advocacy
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.
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.
To advocate for and provide services to children and families when there are allegations of abuse and neglect throughout the investigation,prosecution, treatment, and prevention of child abuse, and to reduce the trauma to childrent with…
To bring hope and healing while working together to break the cycle of child abuse.
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.
None
To provide services for the protection of abused and neglected children that are in the custody of the State of Texas.
Advocates for children
To provide a neutral, child friendly organization that facilitates a multi-disciplinary approach to the investigation, intervention and treatment of child abuse.
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.
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 Advocacy Program Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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. 10 of the 17 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 CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds Texas Legal Services Center INC ↗
- Who funds THE SAFE ALLIANCE FACILITIES HOLDINGS ↗
- Who funds Texas Network of Youth Services Inc ↗
- Who funds TEXAS CASA INC ↗
- Who funds Garth House Mickey Mehaffy Childrens Advocacy Program Inc ↗
- Who funds EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds THE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER FOR NORTH TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST TEXAS CASA 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: Texas Bar Foundation · Meadows Foundation Inc · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 organization 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.
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.