Skip to content
The Junior League of Tyler Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Junior League of Tyler Inc

The Junior League of Tyler, Inc.

$181k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$26k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Food & Nutrition$261kHealth$231kEducation$213kHuman Services$158kCrime & Legal$148kHousing & Shelter$98kYouth Development$57kRecreation & Sports$57kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $152,387, the rows itemized in this filing. The $180,887 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $28,500 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $135k
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
Tyler Area Business Ed Counc$10,000
ANGEL LAYETTES$10,000
Christian Womens Job Corp-Tyler$8,800
CHAPEL HILL ISD EDUCATION FOU$8,587
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 (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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%St Paul Childrens Foundation: $14k → 12%FOSTERING COLLECTIVE: $15k → 12%FOSTERING COLLECTIVE: $12k → 12%FOSTERING COLLECTIVE: $10k → 12%FOSTERING COLLECTIVE: $10k → 12%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 18 repeat orgs$63k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +49% since the first grant, against -40% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
5

Total granted

$1.2M
$44k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+49%
-40%

Still filing today

100%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $19k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthArts & CultureCrime & LegalHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • LC
    LITERACY COUNCIL OF TYLER DBA PAVE EAST TEXAS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $160k · revenue +20%
  • CA
    CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF SMITH COUNTY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $142k · revenue +256%
  • RE
    REGIONAL EAST TEXAS FOOD BANK
    6× · 2017–2023 · $114k · revenue +109%

Funded once

  • KH
    KOURAGE HEALTH INC
    one grant, 2017 · $15k · revenue -50%
  • TM
    TYLER MUSEUM OF ART
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -280%
  • TR
    TEXAS RAMP PROJECTgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $8k · revenue +144%
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
East Texas Community Clinic Inc

To provide comprehensive primary care and preventive care to all persons regardless of their ability to pay.

—
3
Central Texas Children's Home

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.

Human Services
4
Childrens Advocacy Center of Van Zandt County Inc

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.

Human Services
5
Lone Star Casa Inc

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…

Civil Rights
6
Foster Angels of Central Texas Foundation

The organizations mission is to improve the lives of the children in foster care in central texas.

Human Services
7
The Retreat Home for Children

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.

Crime & Legal
8
Texas Foster Care & Adoption Serv

A state of texas licensed foster care and adoption agency that identifies and provides approved healing foster homes for children.

Human Services
9
Texarkana Baptist Orphanage

Care of neglected children

Human Services
10
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
11
The Arc of North Texas

To support and empower people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to improve their quality of life.

—
12
Texas Alliance for Patient Access

Preserve access to quality healthcare for all texans

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mentoring Alliance; 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.
04the grantee network

22 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. 22 of the 25 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
22/22
Grantees still filing
14/22
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REGIONAL EAST TEXAS FOOD BANK: $113,900 · OtherREGIONAL EAST TEXAS FOOD BANKTHE ARC OF SMITH COUNTY: $86,960 · OtherTHE ARC OF SMITH COUNTYALZHEIMERS ALLIANCE OF NORTHEAST TEXAS dba ALZHEIMERS ALLIANCE OF SMITH COUNTY: $43,134 · OtherALZHEIMERS ALLIANCE OF NORTHEAST …MENTORING ALLIANCE: $57,000 · OtherMENTORING ALLIANCEChristian Womens Job Corps of Tyler Inc: $19,069 · OtherDISCOVERY PLACE INC DBA THE DISCOVERY SCIENCE PLACE INC: $17,188 · Other+4 more: $34,768 · Other+4 moreLITERACY COUNCIL OF TYLER DBA PAVE EAST TEXAS: $160,450 · EducationLITERACY COUNCIL O…TYLER IND SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $20,000 · EducationTYLER IND SCHOOL D…TEXAS ADAPTIVE AQUATICS INC: $16,500 · EducationTEXAS ADAPTIVE AQU…SMITH COUNTY CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN INC: $13,526 · EducationSMITH COUNTY CHAMP…BETHESDA HEALTH CLINIC: $88,360 · HealthBETHESDA HEALT…GOLD NETWORK OF EAST TEXAS: $44,000 · HealthGOLD NETWORK O…ANGEL LAYETTES: $17,457 · HealthANGEL LAYETTESKOURAGE HEALTH INC: $15,000 · HealthKOURAGE HEALTH…ST PAUL CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION: $104,207 · Human ServicesST PAUL CHILD…EAST TEXAS ORPHAN CARE NETWORK INC DBA THE FOSTERING COLLECTIVE: $47,489 · Human ServicesEAST TEXAS OR…CHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF SMITH COUNTY: $142,251 · Crime & LegalCHILDRENS ADV…REFUGE OF LIGHT: $5,694 · Crime & LegalMEALS ON WHEELS MINISTRY INC: $123,977 · Food & NutritionMEALS ON WH…Habitat for Humanity of Smith County: $90,370 · Housing & ShelterTEXAS RAMP PROJECT: $7,500 · Housing & Shelter
Other$372,019Education$210,476Health$164,817Human Services$151,696Crime & Legal$147,945Food & Nutrition$123,977Housing & Shelter$97,870

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 budgetLITERACY COUNCIL OF TYLER DBA PAVE EAST TEXAS: $160,450 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetCHILDRENS ADVOCACY CENTER OF SMITH COUNTY: $142,251 over 9y, 1.2% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS MINISTRY INC: $123,977 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetREGIONAL EAST TEXAS FOOD BANK: $113,900 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetST PAUL CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION: $104,207 over 6y, 2.1% of budgetHabitat for Humanity of Smith County: $90,370 over 7y, 1.0% of budgetBETHESDA HEALTH CLINIC: $88,360 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetTHE ARC OF SMITH COUNTY: $86,960 over 5y, 12% of budgetMENTORING ALLIANCE: $57,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetEAST TEXAS ORPHAN CARE NETWORK INC DBA THE FOSTERING COLLECTIVE: $47,489 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetGOLD NETWORK OF EAST TEXAS: $44,000 over 2y, 23% of budgetALZHEIMERS ALLIANCE OF NORTHEAST TEXAS dba ALZHEIMERS ALLIANCE OF SMITH COUNTY: $43,134 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetTYLER IND SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetChristian Womens Job Corps of Tyler Inc: $19,069 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetANGEL LAYETTES: $17,457 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetDISCOVERY PLACE INC DBA THE DISCOVERY SCIENCE PLACE INC: $17,188 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetTEXAS ADAPTIVE AQUATICS INC: $16,500 over 2y, 9.3% of budgetKOURAGE HEALTH INC: $15,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetSMITH COUNTY CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN INC: $13,526 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetTYLER MUSEUM OF ART: $10,120 over 1y, 0.8% 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.

Ben and Maytee Fisch …East Texas Communitie…A S Genecov FoundationThe Louis and Peaches…The Rogers FoundationRiter Family Foundati…Etx Successor SystemWomens Fund of Smith …Hibbs Family Foundati…Hoeffner FoundationUnited Way of Smith C…Byers Family Foundati…
Ben and Maytee Fisch FoundationTX34.7× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 The Junior League of Tyler Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Junior League of Tyler Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 25 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Junior League of Tyler’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