Skip to content

· Public charity

Treatment Assessment Screening Center Inc

To promote the overall well-being of the community by p

$255k
Granted FY2017
6
Grants FY2017
2
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2017 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $249,550, the rows itemized in this filing. The $254,795 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,245 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 · FY2017

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $83k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $166k
$50,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MATFORCE THE YAVAPAI COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COALITION$60,000
SCOTTSDALE PREVENTION INSTITUTE$56,181
ICAN POSITIVE PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH$50,000
ARIZONA YOUTH PARTNERSHIP$34,250
EMPACT - SUICIDE PREVENTION CENTER$30,500
PARTNERSHIP FOR DRUG-FREE KIDS$18,619
02The need
02

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 (FY17–17, $60k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MATFORCE THE YAVAPAI COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COALITION: $60k → 14%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 field
03the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 6 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SCOTTSDALE PREVENTION INSTITUTE: $56,181 · OtherSCOTTSDALE PREVENTION INSTITUTEPartnership for a Drug-Free America: $18,619 · OtherPartnership for a Drug-Free Ameri…Arizona Youth Partnership: $34,250 · HealthArizona Youth PartnershipEMPACT-SUICIDE PREVENTION CENTER: $30,500 · HealthEMPACT-SUICIDE PREVENTION CEN…MATFORCE YAVAPAI COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COALITION: $60,000 · Human ServicesMATFORCE YAVAPAI COUNTY SUB…ICAN IMPROVING CHANDLER AREA NEIGHBORHOODS: $50,000 · Youth DevelopmentICAN IMPROVING CHANDLE…
Other$74,800Health$64,750Human Services$60,000Youth Development$50,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMATFORCE YAVAPAI COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COALITION: $60,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetICAN IMPROVING CHANDLER AREA NEIGHBORHOODS: $50,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetArizona Youth Partnership: $34,250 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetEMPACT-SUICIDE PREVENTION CENTER: $30,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPartnership for a Drug-Free America: $18,619 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Arizona Community FoundationAZ13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arizona Community Foundation · 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 Treatment Assessment Screening Center Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Treatment Assessment Screening Center Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Treatment Assessment Screening Center Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Treatment Assessment Screening Center Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 6 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 2017, released 2017. 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 $1.0M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2017, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Treatment Assessment Screening Center’s filings →

    More from the funding graph