Skip to content
The 100 Club Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The 100 Club Inc

Mission statement support of the law enforcement and firefighting agencies in austin, brazoria, brazos, burleson, chambers, colorado, fayette, fort bend, galveston, grimes, harris, liberty, madison, montgomery, san jacinto, walker, waller, and washington counties, including the provision of financial support to the families of peace…

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Public Safety & Disaster$801kRecreation & Sports$452kCrime & Legal$111kFood & Nutrition$50kHealth$15kPublic Benefit$9k
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $9,591, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,192,618 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,183,027 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.
$9,591
Median grant
1
States reached
$62M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FORT BEND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE$9,591
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 (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%FORT BEND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: $14k → 8%ROMAN FOREST POLICE DEPARTMENT: $9k → 9%IOWA COLONY POLICE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 10%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE: $18k → 10%TEXAS & SOUTHWESTERN CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION: $50k → 11%KEMAH POLICE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 14%EAGLE LAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT: $10k → 15%SOMERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT: $3k → 15%TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE: $28k → 16%CLEVELAND ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT: $63k → 20%BRAZOS COUNTY CONSTABLE PRECINCT 2: $17k → 22%FORT BEND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: $10k → 8%PANORAMA VILLAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT: $24k → 9%ANGLETON ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT: $5k → 10%TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY: $80k → 10%TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE: $15k → 16%MISSOURI CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: $63k → 8%MONTGOMERY POLICE DEPARTMENT: $46k → 9%ANGLETON ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT: $1k → 10%HARRIS COUNTY PRECINCT 3: $23k → 16%HOUSTON ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT: $77k → 16%DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY HARRIS COUTY: $5k → 16%HARRIS COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE: $323k → 16%HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT: $250k → 16%HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT: $194k → 16%HARRIS COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE: $84k → 16%HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT: $13k → 16%HARRIS COUNTY PRECINCT 3: $9k → 16%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.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$986k · 6 repeat orgs$453k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
14

Total granted

$986k
$453k

Still filing today

0%
7%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
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

  • HP
    HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
    3× · 2018–2023 · $457k
  • HC
    HARRIS COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE
    2× · 2018–2019 · $407k
  • TP
    TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE
    3× · 2019–2021 · $61k

Funded once

  • TD
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
    one grant, 2020 · $80k
  • HI
    HOUSTON ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT
    one grant, 2020 · $77k
  • CI
    CLEVELAND ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT
    one grant, 2019 · $63k
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
04the grantee network

1 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. 1 of the 20 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)
1/1
Grantees still filing
0/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT: $456,743 · OtherHOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENTHARRIS COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICE: $406,550 · OtherHARRIS COUNTY SHERRIFF'S OFFICETEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY: $79,815 · OtherTEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETYHOUSTON ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT: $77,490 · OtherHOUSTON ISD POLICE DEPARTMENTCLEVELAND ISD POLICE DEPARTMENT: $63,190 · OtherMISSOURI CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: $62,500 · OtherTEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE: $60,735 · OtherTEXAS & SOUTHWESTERN CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION: $50,459 · Other+12 more: $181,203 · Other+12 more
Other$1,438,685

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTEXAS & SOUTHWESTERN CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION: $50,459 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

  • Who funds TEXAS & SOUTHWESTERN CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The 100 Club Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The 100 Club Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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, FY20–24
    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 20 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 100 Club’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