Skip to content

· Public charity

Salesmanship Club Charitable Golf of Dallas Inc

Operated to support the charitable and educational undertakings of the salesmanship club of dallas.

$5.6M
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$5.5M
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$29MCommunity Improvement$6.0MRecreation & Sports$536kEducation$100kArts & Culture$8k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $154k
  • $250k+1 grant · $5.5M
$5,462,381
Median grant
1
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SALESMANSHIP CLUB OF DALLAS$5,462,381
MOMENTOUS INSTITUTE$154,000
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 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%North Texas PGA Foundation: $111k → 5%Northern Texas PGA Golf Foundation: $21k → 8%The OneStar Foundation: $25k → 10%Salesmanship Club of Dallas: $6.0M → 14%World Golf Foundation: $50k → 6%Nothern Texas PGA Foundation: $18k → 5%Pros for a Purpose: $8k → 8%Salesmanship Club of Dallas: $5.7M → 14%World Golf Foundation: $50k → 6%Northern Texas PGA Foundation: $16k → 5%SALESMANSHIP CLUB OF DALLAS: $5.5M → 14%World Golf Foundation: $50k → 6%Salesmanship Club of Dallas: $5.0M → 14%World Golf Foundation: $50k → 6%SALESMANSHIP CLUB OF DALLAS: $4.5M → 14%World Golf Foundation: $50k → 6%Salesmanship Club of Dallas: $4.0M → 14%World Golf Foundation: $50k → 6%SALESMANSHIP CLUB OF DALLAS: $3.2M → 14%World Golf Foundation: $50k → 6%Salesmanship Club of Dallas: $2.3M → 14%Salesmanship Club of Dallas: $2.3M → 14%Momentous Institute: $1.5M → 14%MOMENTOUS INSTITUTE: $176k → 14%Momentous Institute: $173k → 14%MOMENTOUS INSTITUTE: $154k → 14%Momentous Institute: $132k → 14%Momentous Institute: $10k → 14%Northern Texas Section PGA of America Inc: $16k → 14%The First Tee of Greater Dallas: $95k → 14%Northern Texas PGA Junior Golf Foundation: $5k → 14%The First Tee of Greater Dallas: $5k → 14%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$41M · 5 repeat orgs$48k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +16% since the first grant, against -70% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
3

Total granted

$41M
$48k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
-70%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementRecreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentEducationArts & CultureOther
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

  • SC
    Salesmanship Club of Dallas
    9× · 2017–2025 · $38M · revenue +16% · 45% of their budget
  • MI
    Momentous Institute
    6× · 2017–2025 · $2.1M · revenue +29%
  • NT
    NORTHERN TEXAS PGA FOUNDATION
    5× · 2017–2022 · $170k · revenue +106%

Funded once

  • TO
    THE ONESTAR FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -70%
  • NT
    NORTHERN TEXAS SECTION PGA OF AMERICA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $16k · revenue +55%
  • PF
    Pros for a Purpose Inc
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue -75%
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
Southern Texas Professional Golfers Association Foundation

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.…

Recreation & Sports
2
Professional Golfers Assoc of America Southern Texas Section

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…

—
3
Harmon Family Foundation (Fka the Claude Harmon Foundation)
—
4
Indianapolis Junior Golf Foundation
—
5
The Texas Golf Association Foundation

To promote and expand community awareness of the game of golf in texas through programs serving junior golfers and the community at large.

—
6
Southern Nevada Golf Association

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.

—
7
Amateur Golf Alliance

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…

Recreation & Sports
8
Colorado Section of the Professional Golfers Association

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…

—
9
Professional Golfers Association Mn Section

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…

—
10
The Watson Youth Golf Foundation
Recreation & Sports
11
The Texas Golf Association

To promote the playing and advancement of the royal and ancient game of golf in texas.

—
12
The World Senior Golf Federation Inc
Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Texas Jr Golf and Education Foundation; 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.
04the grantee network

8 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

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

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Salesmanship Club of Dallas: $38,432,398 · Community ImprovementSalesmanship Club of Dallas+1 more: $25,000 · Community ImprovementMomentous Institute: $2,103,732 · Youth DevelopmentWORLD GOLF FOUNDATION INC: $350,000 · Recreation & SportsNORTHERN TEXAS PGA FOUNDATION: $169,900 · Recreation & SportsNORTH TEXAS JR GOLF AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $100,000 · EducationNORTHERN TEXAS SECTION PGA OF AMERICA INC: $15,800 · OtherPros for a Purpose Inc: $7,500 · Arts & Culture
Community Improvement$38,457,398Youth Development$2,103,732Recreation & Sports$519,900Education$100,000Other$15,800Arts & Culture$7,500

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 budgetSalesmanship Club of Dallas: $38,432,398 over 9y, 45% of budgetMomentous Institute: $2,103,732 over 6y, 9.9% of budgetWORLD GOLF FOUNDATION INC: $350,000 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetNORTHERN TEXAS PGA FOUNDATION: $169,900 over 5y, 2.0% of budgetNORTH TEXAS JR GOLF AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 2y, 6.0% of budgetTHE ONESTAR FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNORTHERN TEXAS SECTION PGA OF AMERICA INC: $15,800 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetPros for a Purpose Inc: $7,500 over 1y, 2.4% 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.

National Philanthropic TrustPA9.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Salesmanship Club Charitable Golf of Dallas Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Salesmanship Club Charitable Golf of Dallas Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%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
    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 · 0–5%
    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 8 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 Salesmanship Club Charitable Golf of Dallas’ filings →

    More from the funding graph