Skip to content

· Private foundation

Clark Texas Football Club

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$17k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Education$68kReligion$5k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$29k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Schreiner University$5,000
University of Mary Hardin Baylor$5,000
Texas Lutheran University$5,000
University of Texas at San Antonio$2,150
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 (FY20–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%DOANE UNIVERSITY: $3k → 9%CROWN COLLEGE: $5k → 11%Texas Lutheran University: $5k → 10%TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY: $4k → 10%Schreiner University: $5k → 13%University of Mary Hardin Baylor: $5k → 14%NORTHWEST VISTA COLLEGE: $989 → 16%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $5k → 16%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $5k → 22%SAINT MARY OF THE WOODS COLLEGE: $4k → 19%NORTHWEST VISTA COLLEGE: $350 → 16%TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY: $5k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO: $4k → 16%TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY: $4k → 22%University of Texas at San Antonio: $2k → 16%TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY: $4k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO: $2k → 16%TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY: $3k → 22%TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY CORPUS CHRISTI: $3k → 22%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.

47%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34k · 3 repeat orgs$39k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
7

Total granted

$34k
$24k

Still filing today

0%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 13% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
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

  • TA
    TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
    6× · 2019–2024 · $25k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO
    3× · 2022–2025 · $8k
  • NV
    NORTHWEST VISTA COLLEGE
    2× · 2022–2023 · $1k

Funded once

  • CC
    CROWN COLLEGE
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +24%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
    one grant, 2023 · $5k
  • SM
    SAINT MARY-OF-THE-WOODS COLLEGE
    one grant, 2022 · $4k · revenue +19%
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
California Lutheran University

Clu is an institution offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in the liberal arts and sciences.

Education
2
Augustana University Association

A four-year liberal arts university affiliated with the evangelical lutheran church.

Education
3
Augustana College

Offer a challenging education that develops the qualities of mind, spirit and body for students.

Education
4
Southern Wesleyan University

Challenging students to be dedicated scholars and leaders who impact the world for christ.

Education
5
Augsburg University

A private lutheran four-year university located in downtown minneapolis.

Education
6
St Mary's University

To foster the formation of people in faith and educate leaders for the common good through community, education, and academic excellence. see schedule o.

—
7
Furman University

Furman university is an institution of higher education providing distinctive undergraduate education emphasizing an engaged approach combining classroom learning with real world experiences and self-discovery.

Education
8
Texas Christian University

Texas christian university is an institution of higher education which includes nine major academic units. instruction is for 12,938 students.

Education
9
Southwestern Christian University

Providing christ-centered liberal arts education, empowering graduates to excel.

Education
10
Lafayette College

Provision of educational services as an accredited four-year undergraduate college.

Education
11
John Brown University

Provide a christ-centered education that prepares students to honor god and serve others.

Education
12
St Marys University of Minnesota

Saint mary's university of minnesota is a private catholic institution that serves about 3,900 students annually. the university offers a comprehensive, personalized education guided by its lasallian catholic heritage. with a wide array of…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Schreiner University; the most unlike its peers is Texas a&M-Corpus Christi Foundation. 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

7 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. 7 of the 13 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY: $24,500 · OtherTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO: $8,028 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIOTEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY: $5,000 · OtherTEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITYCROWN COLLEGE: $4,500 · OtherCROWN COLLEGEUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $4,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTONTEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY: $4,000 · OtherTEXAS STATE UNIVERSITYTEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY CORPUS CHRISTI: $2,500 · Other+1 more: $1,339 · OtherSchreiner University: $5,000 · EducationSchreiner UniversityUNIVERSITY OF MARY HARDIN-BAYLOR: $5,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF MARY HARDIN-BA…SAINT MARY-OF-THE-WOODS COLLEGE: $4,000 · EducationSAINT MARY-OF-THE-WOODS COLL…DOANE UNIVERSITY: $3,000 · EducationDOANE UNIVERSITYLINDENWOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM: $1,000 · EducationLINDENWOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM
Other$54,367Education$18,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSchreiner University: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF MARY HARDIN-BAYLOR: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCROWN COLLEGE: $4,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAINT MARY-OF-THE-WOODS COLLEGE: $4,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDOANE UNIVERSITY: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLINDENWOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds TEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds Schreiner University ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MARY HARDIN-BAYLOR ↗
  • Who funds CROWN COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds SAINT MARY-OF-THE-WOODS COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds DOANE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds LINDENWOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM ↗

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.

Tulsa Community FoundationOK19× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tulsa Community Foundation · Folds of Honor Foundation · Council of Independent Colleges · Ibm International Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Clark Texas Football Club funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Clark Texas Football Club. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Clark Texas Football Club?

    Find your warmest path to Clark Texas Football Club 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 13 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Clark Texas Football Club’s filings →

    More from the funding graph