Skip to content
Boys & Girls Clubs in Texas at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Boys & Girls Clubs in Texas

To promote exclusively the social welfare of boys and girls in texas; to provide guidance and to promote the health, social, educational, vocational, character, and cultural development of boys and girls in texas without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin; and to receive, invest, and disburse funds, and to hold property for…

$78k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$5k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Youth Development$753kHuman Services$15k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $5,464, the rows itemized in this filing. The $78,167 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $72,703 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.
$5,464
Median grant
1
States reached
$674k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BGC OF MCALLEN$5,464
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 91% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BRAZORIA COUNTY: $19k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AUSTIN AREA: $23k → 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY: $8k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COOKE COUNTY: $10k → 13%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER DALLAS: $14k → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CENTRAL TEXAS: $8k → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN ANTONIO: $8k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER HOUSTON: $237k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE COASTAL BEND: $276k → 17%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN: $10k → 23%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PHARR: $6k → 27%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BEEVILLE: $36k → 29%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE AUSTIN AREA: $9k → 10%SALVATION ARMY BGC OF TEXAS: $15k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SAN ANTONIO: $6k → 16%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER HOUSTON: $26k → 16%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN: $6k → 23%SALVATION ARMY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF TEXAS: $8k → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER HOUSTON: $8k → 16%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.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$326k · 5 repeat orgs$441k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +65% since the first grant, against +44% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
13

Total granted

$326k
$441k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+65%
+44%

Still filing today

100%
77%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’22’24
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • BA
    Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc
    3× · 2018–2020 · $271k · revenue +80%
  • BG
    Boys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas
    2× · 2018–2020 · $15k · revenue +165%
  • BA
    Boys and Girls Club of McAllen Inc
    2× · 2022–2024 · $11k · revenue +65%

Funded once

  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COASTAL BEND INC
    one grant, 2018 · $276k · revenue +17%
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BEEVILLE INC
    one grant, 2018 · $36k · revenue +13%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AUSTIN COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2020 · $23k · revenue +24%
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
Boys Girls Club
—
2
Boys & Girls Club of Northeast Tx Inc

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reachtheir full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens throughafter school and summer youth development programs.

Youth Development
3
Boys and Girls Club of Augusta/Waynesboro

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
4
Boys & Girls Club of the Red River Valle y

To promote the health, social, educational, vocational and character development of youth in and around Lamar County, Texas.

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of Bandera County

Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.

Recreation & Sports
6
Boys & Girls Club of Baldwin and Jones Co Inc

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

—
7
Boys & Girls Clubs of Harrison County Inc

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
8
Boys & Girls Club of the Missouri River Area

To enable all young people, especially those who need them most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
9
Boys and Girls Club of Bartlesville

To enable our young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their potential.

Youth Development
10
Boys & Girls Club of Ennis

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
11
Boys and Girls Club of Edinburg Rio Grande Valley Inc

To provide opportunity to all youth in a positive caring environment to enable them to become productive, responsible, influential citizens.

—
12
Boys & Girls Club of the Arkansas River Valley Inc

Promoting the health, social, education, and character development of youth

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of San Antonio; the most unlike its peers is Boys Club of Pharr. 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

15 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. 15 of the 18 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
11/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COASTAL BEND INC: $276,442 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COASTAL BEND INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BEEVILLE INC: $36,000 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BEEVILLE INCBoys and Girls Club of Brazoria County: $19,250 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN: $16,274 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY: $14,500 · Other+5 more: $46,238 · Other+5 moreBoys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc: $270,617 · Youth DevelopmentBoys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston IncBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AUSTIN COUNTY INC: $23,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AUSTIN COUNTY INCBoys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas: $15,045 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER DALLAS INC: $14,459 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN ANTONIO: $13,155 · Youth Development+3 more: $22,475 · Youth Development+3 more
Other$408,704Youth Development$358,751

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 budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COASTAL BEND INC: $276,442 over 1y, 19% of budgetBoys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc: $270,617 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BEEVILLE INC: $36,000 over 1y, 4.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AUSTIN COUNTY INC: $23,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of Brazoria County: $19,250 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN: $16,274 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas: $15,045 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER DALLAS INC: $14,459 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN ANTONIO: $13,155 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of McAllen Inc: $11,238 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF COOKE COUNTY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of Laredo Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY INC: $9,201 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS CLUB OF PHARR: $5,774 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of…Boys & Girls Clubs of…The Gap FoundationDollar General Litera…Enterprise Holdings F…Greater Houston Commu…The John G and Marie …The Houston Food BankThe Moody FoundationGood360Texas Mutual Insuranc…Charities Aid Foundat…
Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaGA33.9× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · The Gap Foundation · Dollar General Literacy Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Greater Houston Community Foundation · The John G and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation · The Houston Food Bank · The Moody Foundation · Good360 · Texas Mutual Insurance Company · Charities Aid Foundation America

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 Boys & Girls Clubs in Texas funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boys & Girls Clubs in Texas. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    14report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 18 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boys & Girls Clubs in Texas’ 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