Skip to content
Texprotects-The Texas Association for the Protection of Children at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Texprotects-The Texas Association for the Protection of Children

TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.

$175k
Granted FY2023
3
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$75k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2023.

Health$1.7MHuman Services$367kCrime & Legal$225kEducation$61kPhilanthropy$25kArts & Culture$10k
02FY2023 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Metrocare Services$75,072
Children at Risk Inc$50,000
Texans Care for Children Inc$50,000
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 (FY20–21, $52k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MHMR Foundation: $32k → 11%MHMR Foundation: $21k → 11%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.3M · 15 repeat orgs$80k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +38% since the first grant, against +18% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2023, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
4

Total granted

$2.3M
$80k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+18%

Still filing today

80%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23
PhilanthropyEducationCrime & LegalHealthHuman ServicesOther
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 At Risk
    4× · 2020–2023 · $665k · revenue +26%
  • TC
    Texans Care For Children Inc
    4× · 2020–2023 · $625k · revenue +104%
  • UW
    UNITED WAYS OF TEXAS INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $75k · revenue +45%

Funded once

  • UW
    United Way of Williamson County
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue 0%
  • UW
    United Way of Williamson Cty
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
  • TP
    TEXAS PEDIATRIC SOCIETY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · revenue +18% · 43% of their budget
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
Texprotects-the Texas Association for the Protection of Children

TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.

Youth Development
2
Collaborative for Children

The mission of Collaborative for Children is to meaningfully improve the quality of early childhood education and care for Greater Houston's children through those most influential in their lives.

Human Services
3
United Way of Brazoria County

To educate, unite and focus our community's resources in order to efficiently address the most critical needs of Brazoria County

Philanthropy
4
Raising Austin Inc

Exempt purpose is to increase the knowledge base and skills of early childhood practitioners serving vulnerable children and families by providing high quality, evidence-based professional development that promotes school readiness and…

Crime & Legal
5
Dallas Center Inc

To provide individualized services that positively impact the lives of 0-3 year old children with developmental disabilities/delays and their families.

Human Services
6
United Way for Greater Austin

United way for greater austin brings our community together to break economic barriers and build opportunity for all.

Philanthropy
7
Center for Public Policy Priorities

At the Every Texan, we believe in a Texas that offers everyone the chance to compete and succeed in life. We envision a Texas where everyone is healthy, well educated, and financially secure. We want the best Texas, a proud state that sets…

Public Benefit
8
Raise Texas

RAISE Texas advances equitable policies and programs that foster financial security and economic mobility for low- and moderate-income Texans. We equip, innovate and advocate to reduce disparities, remove barriers and build opportunities…

Human Services
9
Child Care Associates

Cca's mission is to assist family successes through excellence in comprehensive early education and development services.

—
10
Concho Valley Workforce Development Board

CVWDB was founded to provide policy and program guidance for the workforce development and training programs and operate these programs in a manner that would create sustainable economic opportunities for all residents of the of the 13…

Employment
11
Texas Center for Child and Family Studies

To strengthen the lives of children and families.

Human Services
12
Partnerships for Children

To make tomorrow better than today by supporting and empowering children, youth, and families involved with child protective services.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texans Care for Children Inc; the most unlike its peers is Texas Pediatric Society Foundation. 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

14 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 14 of the 19 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Children At Risk: $665,000 · Crime & LegalChildren At RiskTexans Care For Children Inc: $625,000 · Crime & LegalTexans Care For Children IncDALLAS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH & MENTAL RETARDATION CENTER: $440,981 · OtherDALLAS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH & MEN…FIRST3YEARS: $57,500 · OtherFIRST3YEARSTEXAS A&M INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · OtherTEXAS A&M INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSIT…The Quiet Rebel LLC: $50,000 · OtherThe Quiet Rebel LLCYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF LUBBOCK: $50,000 · OtherYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATI…United Way of Williamson County: $25,000 · OtherUnited Way of Williamson Cty: $25,000 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherUNITED WAYS OF TEXAS INC: $75,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY INC: $50,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF WACO-MCLENNAN COUNTY: $50,000 · PhilanthropySMITH COUNTY CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN INC: $50,000 · EducationTEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUNG CHILDREN: $40,000 · EducationNATIONAL CENTER FOR FAMILIES LEARNING INC: $21,438 · EducationEASTER SEALS RIO GRANDE VALLEY: $50,000 · HealthTEXAS PEDIATRIC SOCIETY FOUNDATION: $20,000 · HealthMHMR VISIONS DBA MHMR FOUNDATION: $52,239 · Human Services
Crime & Legal$1,290,000Other$708,481Philanthropy$175,000Education$111,438Health$70,000Human Services$52,239

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetChildren At Risk: $665,000 over 4y, 7.3% of budgetTexans Care For Children Inc: $625,000 over 4y, 14% of budgetUNITED WAYS OF TEXAS INC: $75,000 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetFIRST3YEARS: $57,500 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetMHMR VISIONS DBA MHMR FOUNDATION: $52,239 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetUNITED WAY OF DENTON COUNTY INC: $50,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF WACO-MCLENNAN COUNTY: $50,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF LUBBOCK: $50,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetEASTER SEALS RIO GRANDE VALLEY: $50,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSMITH COUNTY CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN INC: $50,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetTEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUNG CHILDREN: $40,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetUnited Way of Williamson County: $25,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR FAMILIES LEARNING INC: $21,438 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTEXAS PEDIATRIC SOCIETY FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 43% 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.

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.

Meadows Foundation IncCommunities Foundatio…Rainwater Charitable …United Way of Metropo…United Way of Tarrant…United Way WorldwideAustin Community Foun…The Dallas FoundationTulsa Community Found…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…
Meadows Foundation IncTX17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Meadows Foundation Inc · Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Rainwater Charitable Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Dallas Inc · United Way of Tarrant County · United Way Worldwide · Austin Community Foundation Inc · The Dallas Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Texprotects-The Texas Association for the Protection of Children funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Texprotects-The Texas Association for the Protection of Children. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%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
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 19 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Texprotects-The Texas Association for the Protection of Children’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home