Skip to content
Greater Fort Worth Real Estate Council at a glance

· Public charity

Greater Fort Worth Real Estate Council

The real estate council of greater fort worth (rec of gfw) is the unified voice for the commercial real estate industry - influencing action and supporting change to accomplish long-term job growth and an enhanced quality of life in our region.

$56k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$20k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Community Improvement$218kEducation$80kEmployment$41kPublic Benefit$25kEnvironment$5kYouth Development$2kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $45,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $56,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $11,000 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.
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$399k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTER FOR REAL ESTATE AT TCU$20,000
FORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP$15,000
BUILDING PATHWAYS INC$10,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%CITY OF FORT WORTH: $25k → 11%CENTER FOR REAL ESTATE & URBAN ANALYSIS: $13k → 14%FORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $20k → 11%TRINITY METRO: $15k → 11%BUILDING PATHWAYS: $11k → 11%VISIT FORT WORTH: $8k → 11%CITIZENS FOR CLASSROOM EXCELLENCE: $5k → 11%NEWS TRIBUNE DIGITAL: $5k → 11%OUR COMMUNITY OUR FUTURE PAC: $5k → 11%TRINITY METRO: $30k → 11%THE COMMUNITY DESIGN STUDIO FORT WORTH: $15k → 11%FORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $20k → 11%THE COMMUNITY DESIGN STUDIO FORT WORTH: $15k → 11%FORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $15k → 11%THE COMMUNITY DESIGN STUDIO FORT WORTH: $15k → 11%COMMUNITY DESIGN FORT WORTH: $10k → 11%CENTER FOR REAL ESTATE AT TCU: $10k → 11%BUILDING PATHWAYS INC: $20k → 11%BUILDING PATHWAYS INC: $10k → 11%READ FORT WORTH: $11k → 11%READ FORT WORTH: $9k → 11%FORT WORTH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: $10k → 11%CENTER FOR REAL ESTATE AT TCU: $20k → 11%READ FORT WORTH: $7k → 11%KINDERFROGS: $5k → 11%KIDS WHO CARE INC: $2k → 11%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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$323k · 7 repeat orgs$97k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
11

Total granted

$323k
$97k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+20%

Still filing today

71%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’23’24’25
Community ImprovementEducationCrime & LegalOther
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

  • TT
    TARRANT TRANSIT ALLIANCE
    4× · 2018–2021 · $85k · revenue -53% · 42% of their budget
  • FW
    FORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
    3× · 2023–2025 · $55k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2019–2021 · $45k

Funded once

  • CO
    CITY OF FORT WORTH
    one grant, 2023 · $25k
  • TG
    The George Washington Universitygraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $13k · revenue +26%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR REAL ESTATE AT TCU
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
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
Fort Worth Chamber Development Foundation

To support and develop the growth of the city of fort worth.

Community Improvement
2
Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce

To act as the voice of business, articulating a business perspective and advocating policies supported by the fort worth general business community.

—
3
Fort Worth Tarrant County Innovation Partnership

Formed with the support of texas a&m fort worth, the fort worth-tarrant county innovation partnership (fwtcip) undertakes charitable activities and lessens the burdens of local government by creating economic opportunity for the fort worth…

Community Improvement
4
Fort Worth Black Chamber of Commerce

The mission of the chamber is to provide business opportunities and generate increased spending in the community. The chamber activity promotes an environment which creates equitable and profitable opportunities for minority businesses…

—
5
Tex-E Inc
Education
6
Dfw Thrives

To uplift the dallas-fort worth community by issuing grants to local businesses, entrepreneurs, and impactful projects. we aim to catalyze positive change, foster development and build a thriving, interconnected city.

Community Improvement
7
Fort Worth Education Partnership Inc

We believe that every fort worth area student deserves the opportunity to have access to high-quality education. in pursuit of this, fort worth education partnership's mission is to support, invest in, and coordinate opportunities that…

Education
8
Fort Worth Promotion and Development Fun

To raise public funds and allocate them to organizations which promote and support the city of fort worth, texas.

Community Improvement
9
Waller County Economic Development Partnership

Promote positive economic growth in waller county, texas.

Community Improvement
10
Fort Worth Convention & Visitors Bureau

To generate economic activity for fort worth, texas through the promotion of convention and visitor business.

—
11
Fort Worth Sports Commission

The organizations purpose is to promote Sports and Sports Tourism to the City of Fort Worth and to either build or maintain Sports complexes or existing facilities that will increase the economic impact for local businesses, increase tax…

Community Improvement
12
Ellsworth County Economic Development Corporation

Ellsworth county economic development is improving the lives of citizens of ellsworth county through recruitment, retention, and expansion of goods and services offered in ellsworth county.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fort Worth Economic Development Partnership; the most unlike its peers is Texas Christian University. 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

9 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. 9 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TARRANT TRANSIT ALLIANCE: $85,000 · OtherTARRANT TRANSIT ALLIANCEIndividual grant recipient: $45,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientREAD FORT WORTH: $27,373 · OtherREAD FORT WORTHCITY OF FORT WORTH: $25,000 · OtherCITY OF FORT WORTHCENTER FOR REAL ESTATE AT TCU: $10,000 · OtherFORT WORTH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: $10,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY DESIGN FORT WORTH: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $8,000 · Other+4 more: $16,600 · Other+4 moreFORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $55,000 · Community ImprovementFORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPM…CDSFW: $45,000 · Community ImprovementCDSFWTEXAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $5,000 · Community ImprovementBUILDING PATHWAYS INC: $40,500 · Crime & LegalBUILDING P…TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $25,000 · EducationTEXAS CHRI…The George Washington University: $12,500 · EducationThe George…
Other$236,973Community Improvement$105,000Crime & Legal$40,500Education$37,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTARRANT TRANSIT ALLIANCE: $85,000 over 4y, 42% of budgetFORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $55,000 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetCDSFW: $45,000 over 3y, 86% of budgetTEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetThe George Washington University: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTEXAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetKIDS WHO CARE INC: $1,600 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.

  • Who funds TARRANT TRANSIT ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds FORT WORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP ↗
  • Who funds CDSFW ↗
  • Who funds BUILDING PATHWAYS INC ↗
  • Who funds READ FORT WORTH ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds The George Washington University ↗
  • Who funds TEXAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds KIDS WHO CARE INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Greater Fort Worth Real Estate Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Greater Fort Worth Real Estate Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.

    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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Greater Fort Worth Real Estate Council’s 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