· Public charity
Texas Freedom Network Education Fund
The TEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK EDUCATION FUND supports civic education, voter engagement and research to promote equality, religious freedom and social justice.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 3 grants below total $536,168 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $713,415 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $177,247 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
- Under $10k1 grant · $10k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $206k
- $250k+1 grant · $320k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MOVE TEXAS CIVIC ENGAGEMENT FUND | $320,334 |
| JOLT INITIATIVE | $206,334 |
| RADICAL REGISTRARS | $9,500 |
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 (FY18–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 61% of your 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +75% since the first grant, against +67% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 1 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 FY2024, 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
ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ORGANIZING7× · 2018–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +248%- JAJOLT ACTION INC6× · 2018–2024 · $1.5M · revenue -37% · 57% of their budget
- YRYouth Rise Texas Inc6× · 2018–2023 · $1.2M · revenue -97% · 31% of their budget
Funded once
- JIJOLT INITIATIVEgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $376k · revenue +97% · 26% of their budget
- CFCenter for Public Policy Prioritiesone grant, 2023 · $293k · revenue -11%
- WDWORKERS DEFENSE PROJECTgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $200k · revenue +67%
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.
Asian Texans for Justice connects Asian and Pacific Islander Texans with civic action to build personal and political power.
The Progress Texas Institute provides research and strategic communications on issues with the ultimate goal of increasing civic engagement.
Progress Texas is a non-profit media organization advocating for progressive ideals and policies in our state.
The Texas Future Action Fund supports and elevates civic engagement efforts of organizations in Texas through grantmaking, donor education, and fundraising to build long-term political power in our state.
The Texas Future Civic Fund supports and elevates civic engagement efforts of organizations in Texas through grantmaking, donor education, and fundraising to ensure a healthy, fair, and reflective democracy.
The PoliChic Engagement Fund is committed to fostering civic participation among women and their families in Texas.
The ACLU of Texas works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.
The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization working to protect and expand voting rights and ensure everyone is represented in our democracy. We empower voters and defend democracy through advocacy, education, and…
See Schedule OTDS fights for the end of mass incarceration and excessive punishment in Texas through direct representation, policy reform, and public education. TDS stands up for the dignity and humanity of people harmed by mass…
Empower voters and defend democracy in Texas. Provide support to local Leagues and support the development of new local chapters.
Education and training concerning social justice issues, according to Unitarian Universalist Principles and values, for Texas Unitarian Universalist congregations and for the general public.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oficina Legal Del Pueblo Unido Inc and the most unlike its peers is Avow Foundation for Abortion Access. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 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.
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 ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH ORGANIZING ↗
- Who funds JOLT ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds Youth Rise Texas Inc ↗
- Who funds JOLT INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds Center for Public Policy Priorities ↗
- Who funds WORKERS DEFENSE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR POPULAR DEMOCRACY INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK ↗
- Who funds OFICINA LEGAL DEL PUEBLO UNIDO INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRO POR LA JUSTICIA ↗
- Who funds Radical Registrars ↗
- Who funds Pure Justice ↗
- Who funds GOOD DEED CORPS ↗
- Who funds Deeds Not Words ↗
- Who funds ORGANIZATION OF CHINESE AMERICANS OF GREATER HOUSTON ↗
- Who funds Avow Foundation for Abortion Access ↗
- Who funds THE PROVIDENCE ON SOUTHMORE ↗
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: NEO Philanthropy Inc · Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · Texas Organizing Project · Greater Houston Community Foundation · Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc · Houston in Action Network · Windward Fund · The Ford Foundation · Houston in Action · Texas Organizing Project Education 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 Texas Freedom Network Education Fund 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.