Loading…
· Private foundation
WOLF BENEVOLENT TUA
This foundation accepts unsolicited grant applications.
$58k
Granted FY2025
5
Grants
2
Communities
$20k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 41% of WOLF BENEVOLENT TUA’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
education
2020
educationchildren
2021
educationsocialchildren
2023
east
2024
—
2025
east
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2025 · 5 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $15k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $43k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
- EAST TEXAS CRISIS CENTER INC$20,000
- EAST TEXAS FOOD BANK$13,053
- CHAMPION FOR CHILDREN$10,000
- THE MENTORING ALLIANCE$7,500
- CASA FOR KIDS OF EAST TEXAS$7,500
02The need
04
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY18–25, $93k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12% — the area typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
88%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$340k · 11 repeat orgs$47k to everyone else
11 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
11
6
Total granted
$340k
$47k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+73%
+815%
Still filing today
55%
33%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Crime & LegalHuman ServicesCivil RightsYouth DevelopmentEducationArts & CultureOther
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
- ETEAST TEXAS CRISIS CENTER INC6× · 2018–2025 · $93k · revenue +73%
- CFCASA FOR KIDS OF EAST TEXAS4× · 2018–2025 · $44k · revenue +57%
- TMTHE MENTORING ALLIANCE4× · 2018–2025 · $38k · revenue +54%
Funded once
- CAChildren's Advocacy Center of Smith Counone grant, 2024 · $16k
- FTFOR THE SILENTone grant, 2024 · $16k · revenue -4%
- TITapkard Incgraduatedone grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue +815%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
Casa for Kids of South Central Texas Inc
To recruit, train and supervise volunteers that advocate in the best interests of abused and neglected children in court.
Housing & Shelter
2
Casa of Deep East Texas Inc
Train volunteers to advocate for children in court directed foster care.
Crime & Legal
3
Casa of South Texas Inc
Child Advocacy
Human Services
4
Tip of Texas Family Outreach Inc
To strengthen families through parenting classes educational programs, youth programs and referral services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect.
—
5
Texprotects-the Texas Association for
TexProtects advances public policy and local implementation to strenghten families to prevent child abuse and neglect.
Youth Development
6
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
7
Innocence Project of Texas
Innocence Project of Texas (IPTX) is a nonprofit human service organization that provides legal and investigative assistance to low-income Texas citizens who were convicted of crimes they did not commit.
Community Improvement
8
Texas Defender Service
Texas Defender Service (TDS) leads the fight to end excessive punishment in Texas.
Civil Rights
9
Court Appointed Special Advocates of North Texas Inc
To provide court appointed volunteers who serve as advocates and help abused children obtain safe permanent home placements
—
10
Texans Care for Children Inc
Texas Care for Children shapes public policies and brings Texans together to make children a statewide priority. We work so kids can have what they need to be healthy, secure, and thriving and so every Texan can have the best start to life.
Crime & Legal
11
Texas Legal Services Center Inc
To expand access to justice and legal advocacy for low-income Texans.
Crime & Legal
12
Childrens Advocacy Center of
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
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Literacy Council of Tyler and the most unlike its peers is Tapkard Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
8 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$159,786Human Services$93,006Civil Rights$43,690Youth Development$38,000Crime & Legal$25,866Education$22,500Arts & Culture$3,520
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.
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.
East Texas Communities FoundationTX22.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: East Texas Communities Foundation · Womens Fund of Smith County · Hibbs Family Foundation · James I Perkins Family Foundation · Riter Family Foundation · United Way of Smith County · A S Genecov Foundation · T B Butler Foundation · The Junior League of Tyler Inc · The Louis and Peaches Owen · Amazonsmile 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 organisation WOLF BENEVOLENT TUA 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: FOR THE SILENT.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~9 months of operating runway; revenue held over 8 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 743193209 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on FOR THE SILENT, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 9 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 6% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Wolf Benevolent Tua?
Find your warmest path to Wolf Benevolent Tua through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines