· Public charity
University of Dallas
The University of Dallas is dedicated to the pursuit of wisdom, of truth, and of virtue as the proper and primary ends of education.
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 3 grants below total $81,682 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $51,961,601 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $51,879,919 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 · $15k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $67k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Church of the Incarnation | $67,000 |
| In My Shoes | $7,345 |
| Missionaries of Charity Inc | $7,337 |
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 (FY18–25, $106k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 89% of those 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 +266% since the first grant, against +37% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 1 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, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
- COCHURCH OF THE INCARNATION5× · 2021–2025 · $229k
- IMIN MY SHOES INC3× · 2020–2025 · $33k · revenue +266%
- COCHURCH OF THE INCARNATION2× · 2017–2018 · $14k
Funded once
- BIBoethius Institute for the Advancement of Liberal Educationone grant, 2023 · $24k · 40% of their budget
- LBLow Birth Weight Development Centerone grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue -39%
- STSJRC TEXAS INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $11k · revenue +101%
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.
Crisis pregnancy counseling.
LifeHouse is a Christ-centered ministry ensuring life for unborn children by providing opportunities for housing, help, and hope for young women during their pregnancies and beyond.
The Lullaby House missionis ot strengthen families by providing programs and services to teenage parents and familites in need which will inspire and promote generational change.
Pregnancy Resources' mission is to inspire hope and unconditionally love everyone we serve by empowering them to thrive through compassionate support and positive solutions.
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.
To provide support services for women facing unplanned pregnancies, to point them to Jesus Christ, and to promote adoption as a loving alternative.
Pregnancy counseling
None
Confidential pregnancy testing; counseling in pregnancy options; classes in prenatal care, parenting and job skills; referrals; providing baby items and clothing.
Child Advocacy
Sunny Glen Childrens Home, Inc. cares for children in need. Our care will be competent, compassionate and professional. We will help every child achieve their greatest potential-physically, emotionally, spiritually and academically.
Texas pregnancy care network is committed to assisting pregnant women and their families in need of compassionate, practical and life affirming alternatives to abortion.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dallas Children's Advocacy Center and the most unlike its peers is Boethius Institute for the Advancement of Liberal Education. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 36 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 26% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 15% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
16 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. 16 of the 21 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 IN MY SHOES INC ↗
- Who funds Boethius Institute for the Advancement of Liberal Education ↗
- Who funds Low Birth Weight Development Center ↗
- Who funds SJRC TEXAS INC ↗
- Who funds CORPUS CHRISTI HOPE HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds DALLAS CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Scottys House Brazos Valley Child Advocacy Center Inc ↗
- Who funds Abel Speaks ↗
- Who funds A WOMANS HAVEN INC ↗
- Who funds RAYS OF LIGHT WHERE SPECIAL CHILDREN SHINE ↗
- Who funds Guide Dogs of Texas Inc ↗
- Who funds Catholic Charities of Southeast Texas ↗
- Who funds PROJECT ULTRASOUND INC ↗
- Who funds HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds THE CHROMOSOME 18 REGISTRY & RESEARCH SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds KID NET FOUNDATION JONATHANS PLACE ↗
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: Communities Foundation of Texas Inc · Shell USA Company Foundation · Christus Health · Greater Houston Community Foundation · Texas Instruments Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 University of Dallas 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.