· Public charity
Salesmanship Club Charitable Golf of Dallas Inc
Operated to support the charitable and educational undertakings of the salesmanship club of dallas.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $4,719,341 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,838,596 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $119,255 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.
By grant size · FY2024
- $50k–250k1 grant · $176k
- $250k+1 grant · $4.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SALESMANSHIP CLUB OF DALLAS | $4,543,341 |
| MOMENTOUS INSTITUTE | $176,000 |
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% 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 +6% since the first grant, against -70% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 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.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- SCSalesmanship Club of Dallas8× · 2017–2024 · $33M · revenue +9% · 45% of their budget
- MIMomentous Institute5× · 2017–2024 · $1.9M · revenue +6%
- NTNORTHERN TEXAS PGA FOUNDATION5× · 2017–2022 · $170k · revenue +106%
Funded once
- TOTHE ONESTAR FOUNDATIONone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -70%
- NTNORTHERN TEXAS SECTION PGA OF AMERICA INCgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $16k · revenue +55%
- PFPros for a Purpose Incone grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue -75%
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 introduce and provide youth in south texas broad opportunities to experience the game of golf, develop their talent as players and themselves as individuals and promote scholarship benefits to as many qualified candidates as possible.…
To promote the enjoyment and involvement in the game of golf and to contribute to the growth of the golf professional and the golf industry. the southern texas section will accomplish this mission by enhancing the skills of golf…
To promote and expand community awareness of the game of golf in texas through programs serving junior golfers and the community at large.
To support and promote the game of golf in southern nevada, our mission is to grow participation, provide excellent service, and demonstrate passion in the game of golf while upholding the integrity and traditions of the game.
Our mission is to provide the championship with its playability and unique hole designs in the dfw area. we also offer the players golf courses to support and promote amateur golfers with more opportunities to compete at national and…
To promote the enjoyment and involvement in the game of golf and to contribute to the growth of the golf professional and the golf industry. the colorado section will accomplish this mission by enhancing the skills of golf professionals…
To promote the enjoyment and involvement in the game of golf and to contribute to the growth of the golf professional and the golf industry. the minnesota section will accomplish this mission by enhancing the skills of golf professionals…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Texas Jr Golf and Education Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Pros for a Purpose Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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.
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 Salesmanship Club of Dallas ↗
- Who funds Momentous Institute ↗
- Who funds WORLD GOLF FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN TEXAS PGA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NORTH TEXAS JR GOLF AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE ONESTAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN TEXAS SECTION PGA OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds Pros for a Purpose Inc ↗
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: National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 organization Salesmanship Club Charitable Golf of Dallas Inc 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.