· Public charity
The Junior League of Tyler Inc
The Junior League of Tyler, Inc.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $152,387 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $180,887 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $28,500 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $17k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $135k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Literacy Council of Tyler Inc | $26,000 |
| ARC of Tyler | $25,000 |
| Childrens Advocacy Ctr-E TX | $20,000 |
| Bethesda Health Clinic | $15,000 |
| FOSTERING COLLECTIVE | $15,000 |
| Gold Network of East Texas | $14,000 |
| ANGEL LAYETTES | $10,000 |
| Tyler Area Business Ed Counc | $10,000 |
| Christian Womens Job Corp-Tyler | $8,800 |
| CHAPEL HILL ISD EDUCATION FOU | $8,587 |
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 (FY22–25, $61k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 +49% since the first grant, against -40% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
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 FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k 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
- LCLITERACY COUNCIL OF TYLER DBA PAVE EAST TEXAS9× · 2017–2025 · $160k · revenue +20%
- CACHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF SMITH COUNTY9× · 2017–2025 · $142k · revenue +256%
- REREGIONAL EAST TEXAS FOOD BANK6× · 2017–2023 · $114k · revenue +109%
Funded once
- KHKOURAGE HEALTH INCone grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue -50%
- TMTYLER MUSEUM OF ARTone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -280%
- TRTEXAS RAMP PROJECTgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +144%
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.
TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.
To provide comprehensive primary care and preventive care to all persons regardless of their ability to pay.
To provide family services and to provide residential child care for dependent children where there is a need to assist children and families disrupted by problems.
The children's advocacy center of van zandt county is committed to ensuring quality services and support to those children impacted by abuse while also building a future where no child in van zandt county experiences abuse.
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…
The organizations mission is to improve the lives of the children in foster care in central texas.
Our mission is to show the love of christ to each and every child and family towhom we serve and beyond. we do this by creating a culture where the needs of children,families, and staff are seen and met in creative and innovative ways.
A state of texas licensed foster care and adoption agency that identifies and provides approved healing foster homes for children.
Care of neglected children
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.
To support and empower people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to improve their quality of life.
Preserve access to quality healthcare for all texans
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mentoring Alliance and the most unlike its peers is Refuge of Light. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
22 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. 22 of the 25 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 LITERACY COUNCIL OF TYLER DBA PAVE EAST TEXAS ↗
- Who funds CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF SMITH COUNTY ↗
- Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS MINISTRY INC ↗
- Who funds REGIONAL EAST TEXAS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds ST PAUL CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Habitat for Humanity of Smith County ↗
- Who funds BETHESDA HEALTH CLINIC ↗
- Who funds THE ARC OF SMITH COUNTY ↗
- Who funds MENTORING ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds EAST TEXAS ORPHAN CARE NETWORK INC DBA THE FOSTERING COLLECTIVE ↗
- Who funds GOLD NETWORK OF EAST TEXAS ↗
- Who funds ALZHEIMERS ALLIANCE OF NORTHEAST TEXAS dba ALZHEIMERS ALLIANCE OF SMITH COUNTY ↗
- Who funds TYLER IND SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Christian Womens Job Corps of Tyler Inc ↗
- Who funds ANGEL LAYETTES ↗
- Who funds DISCOVERY PLACE INC DBA THE DISCOVERY SCIENCE PLACE INC ↗
- Who funds TEXAS ADAPTIVE AQUATICS INC ↗
- Who funds KOURAGE HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds SMITH COUNTY CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN INC ↗
- Who funds TYLER MUSEUM OF ART ↗
- Who funds TEXAS RAMP PROJECT ↗
- Who funds REFUGE OF LIGHT ↗
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: Ben and Maytee Fisch Foundation · East Texas Communities Foundation · A S Genecov Foundation · The Louis and Peaches Owen Family Foundation · The Rogers Foundation · Riter Family Foundation · Etx Successor System · Womens Fund of Smith County · Hibbs Family Foundation · Hoeffner Foundation · United Way of Smith County · Byers Family 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 The Junior League of Tyler 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.