Skip to content

· 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 FY2022
1
States reached
$79k
Largest
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.

Crime & Legal$3.6MHealth$947kHuman Services$518kEducation$68kYouth Development$25k
02FY2022 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Garth House: $107k → 19%Garth House: $39k → 19%Garth House: $44k → 16%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.0M · 12 repeat orgs$110k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2022, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
5

Total granted

$5.0M
$110k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
+45%

Still filing today

50%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22
Crime & LegalHuman ServicesCivil RightsEducationOther
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

  • CA
    CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INC
    5× · 2017–2022 · $1.9M · revenue +110%
  • TL
    Texas Legal Services Center INC
    3× · 2018–2021 · $364k · revenue +24%
  • TS
    THE SAFE ALLIANCE FACILITIES HOLDINGS
    5× · 2017–2022 · $291k · revenue +81% · 43% of their budget

Funded once

  • SH
    SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2018 · $54k
  • EP
    EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +9%
  • TS
    THE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCEgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $14k · revenue +45%
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
Casa of South Texas Inc

Child Advocacy

Human Services
2
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Milam County
—
3
Court Appointed Special Advocates in the Heart of Texas

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
4
Ft Bend County Child Advocates Inc

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.

Civil Rights
5
Guadalupe County Children's Advocacy Center

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…

Crime & Legal
6
Northeast Texas Child Advocacy Center Inc

To bring hope and healing while working together to break the cycle of child abuse.

Human Services
7
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Denton County Inc

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
8
Court Appointed Special Advocates Casa of Liberty/Chambers Counties

None

Human Services
9
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
10
Casa of Central Texas Inc

Advocates for children

Civil Rights
11
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
12
Childrens Advocacy Center of West Texas Inc

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.

Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas Casa Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

10 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. 10 of the 17 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)
10/10
Grantees still filing
10/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INC: $1,871,050 · Crime & LegalCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INCTexas Legal Services Center INC: $364,333 · Crime & LegalTexas Legal Services Center INC+1 more: $10,000 · Crime & LegalUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER HOUSTON: $582,783 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER H…TEXAS MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION: $431,763 · OtherTEXAS MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATIONHARRIS COUNTY: $412,650 · OtherHARRIS COUNTYDEPARTMENT OF FAMILY PROTECTED SERVICES: $299,790 · OtherDEPARTMENT OF FAMILY PROTECTED SERVICESBEXAR COUNTY: $152,951 · OtherBEXAR COUNTY+3 more: $96,779 · OtherTHE SAFE ALLIANCE FACILITIES HOLDINGS: $291,140 · Human ServicesTHE SAFE ALLIAN…Texas Network of Youth Services Inc: $220,301 · Human ServicesTexas Network o…Garth House Mickey Mehaffy Childrens Advocacy Program Inc: $190,364 · Human ServicesGarth House Mic…TEXAS CASA INC: $203,971 · Civil Rights+1 more: $6,716 · Civil RightsTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $14,159 · Education
Crime & Legal$2,245,383Other$1,976,716Human Services$701,805Civil Rights$210,687Education$14,159

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTERS OF TEXAS INC: $1,871,050 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetTexas Legal Services Center INC: $364,333 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetTHE SAFE ALLIANCE FACILITIES HOLDINGS: $291,140 over 5y, 43% of budgetTexas Network of Youth Services Inc: $220,301 over 3y, 11% of budgetTEXAS CASA INC: $203,971 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetGarth House Mickey Mehaffy Childrens Advocacy Program Inc: $190,364 over 3y, 6.1% of budgetEL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE SHAKEN BABY ALLIANCE: $14,159 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetCHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER FOR NORTH TEXAS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetNORTHEAST TEXAS CASA INC: $6,716 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

  • 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 ↗

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.

Texas Bar FoundationTX19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Texas Center for the Judiciary Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Texas Center for the Judiciary 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.

    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 17 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 (FY2024) 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 Texas Center for the Judiciary’s filings →

    More from the funding graph