Skip to content
Foundation DossiersAlso receives grants: funding profile →

Washington · Public charity

Auburn Mountainview Booster Club

To support auburn mountainview high school academics, activities, arts, and athletics.

$19k
Granted FY2017
1
Itemized grants FY2017
1
Organizations funded FY2017
Read the full brief
Itemized, FY2017
$6k
The rest is grants the schedule does not break out
Median grant, FY2017
$6,000
Largest grant, FY2017
$6,000
States reached, FY2017
1
Total assets, FY2017
$220k

Top grantees

Largest grants in FY2017.

AUBURN MOUNTAINVIEW HIGH SCHOOL$6,000

Compare Auburn Mountainview Booster Club with peer funders

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Auburn Mountainview Booster Club?

Find your warmest path to Auburn Mountainview Booster 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.

About Auburn Mountainview Booster Club

How much does Auburn Mountainview Booster Club give?
Auburn Mountainview Booster Club reported 1 itemized grants totaling $6,000, out of $18,700 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2017 IRS filing.
What does Auburn Mountainview Booster Club fund?
By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2017, its largest causes are Youth Development (100%).
Where is Auburn Mountainview Booster Club based?
Auburn Mountainview Booster Club is based in WA.

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 1 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $12k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2017, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Auburn Mountainview Booster 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