· 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…
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 53% of BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS IN TEXAS’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 1 grants below total $5,464 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $78,167 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $72,703 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BGC OF MCALLEN | $5,464 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 91% of your 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 +65% since the first grant, against +44% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
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
- BABoys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc3× · 2018–2020 · $271k · revenue +80%
- BGBoys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas2× · 2018–2020 · $15k · revenue +161%
- BABoys and Girls Club of McAllen Inc2× · 2022–2024 · $11k · revenue +65%
Funded once
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COASTAL BEND INCone grant, 2018 · $276k · revenue +17%
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BEEVILLE INCone grant, 2018 · $36k · revenue +13%
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AUSTIN COUNTY INCone grant, 2020 · $23k · revenue +24%
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.
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.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.
To promote the health, social, educational, vocational and character development of youth in and around Lamar County, Texas.
Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.
To enable all young people, especially those who need them most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
To enable our young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their potential.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
To provide opportunity to all youth in a positive caring environment to enable them to become productive, responsible, influential citizens.
Promoting the health, social, education, and character development of youth
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of San Antonio and 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.
15 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. 15 of the 18 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 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COASTAL BEND INC ↗
- Who funds Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BEEVILLE INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF AUSTIN COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds Boys and Girls Club of Brazoria County ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARLINGEN ↗
- Who funds Boys & Girls Clubs of Deep East Texas ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER DALLAS INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN ANTONIO ↗
- Who funds Boys and Girls Club of McAllen Inc ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF COOKE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds Boys and Girls Club of Laredo Inc ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS CLUB OF PHARR ↗
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: 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
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 Boys & Girls Clubs in Texas 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.