Skip to content
Boys and Girls Club of Cheyenne Wyoming Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Boys and Girls Club of Cheyenne Wyoming Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us the most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

$273k
Granted FY2023
6
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$127k
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, FY2017 to 2023.

Youth Development$1.1MHealth$40k
02FY2023 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $146k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $127k
$27,709
Median grant
1
States reached
$8.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHEYENNE$126,935
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB CENTRAL WYOMING$44,133
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SWEETWATER CO$27,709
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF DOUGLAS$27,260
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB CAMPBELL COUNTY$25,917
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARBON COUNTY$21,029
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:

Its human-services grants (FY23–23, $127k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHEYENNE: $127k → 10%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 8 repeat orgs$127k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against -19% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
1

Total granted

$1.0M
$127k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
-19%

Still filing today

75%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 54% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $127k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Youth DevelopmentHuman ServicesOther
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

  • BG
    Boys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming
    7× · 2017–2023 · $368k · revenue +78%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SWEETWATER COUNTY
    7× · 2017–2023 · $184k · revenue +33%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CAMPBELL CO
    7× · 2017–2023 · $146k · revenue +91%

Funded once

  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHEAST WYOMING INC
    one grant, 2023 · $127k · revenue -19%
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
Boys Girls Club
—
2
Boys & Girls Club of the Greater West Plains Area

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive and caring citizens.

Youth Development
3
Boys & Girls Club of Carbon County

The boys & girls club of carbon county was organized to enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to become productive, responsible, and caring citizens.

—
4
Boys and Girls Club of Glacier Country

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
5
Boys and Girls Clubs of West Central Missouri

The mission of the boys & girls clubs of west central missouri is to inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as caring and productive citizens.

Youth Development
6
Boys and Girls Club of Augusta/Waynesboro

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
7
Boys & Girls Clubs of Cooke County Inc

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential, as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

—
8
Boys & Girls Club of Northwest Colo

The mission of the clubs is to enable and inspire the youth of our area to reach their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens. the clubs offers core programs designed to engage youth with peers and caring adults to…

Youth Development
9
Boys & Girls Clubs of North Central Georgia

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need it most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

Youth Development
10
The Boys and Girls Club of Washington Co

The bgcwc provides programming to more than 550 youth annually, grades k thru 12, in the areas of character, leadership, social and physical recreation, and performing better in school.

Youth Development
11
Boys & Girls Club of Central Sw Iowa Inc

Inspire and enable young people, including those from disadvantaged circumstances, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens.

Human Services
12
Boys and Girls Club of the Northern Cheyenne Nation

The boys & girls club's mission is to inspire and enable all youth of the northern cheyenne nation and surrounding areas to be productive citizens.

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of Campbell Co; the most unlike its peers is Grace for 2 Brothers Foundation. 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. 8 of the 9 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Boys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming: $368,309 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Club of Central WyomingBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SWEETWATER COUNTY: $184,309 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SWEETWATER COUNTYBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CAMPBELL CO: $146,483 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CAMPBELL COBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CARBON CO: $127,185 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CARBON COBoys & Girls Club of Douglas: $79,518 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Club of DouglasBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHEYENNE: $51,765 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS …BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DUBOIS: $50,359 · OtherBOYS AND GIRL…GRACE FOR 2 BROTHERS FOUNDATION: $40,163 · OtherGRACE FOR 2 B…BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHEAST WYOMING INC: $126,935 · Human ServicesBOYS AND GIR…
Youth Development$905,804Other$142,287Human Services$126,935

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBoys & Girls Club of Central Wyoming: $368,309 over 7y, 2.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SWEETWATER COUNTY: $184,309 over 7y, 9.4% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CAMPBELL CO: $146,483 over 7y, 5.2% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CARBON CO: $127,185 over 7y, 7.3% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHEAST WYOMING INC: $126,935 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of Douglas: $79,518 over 6y, 2.8% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DUBOIS: $50,359 over 3y, 16% of budgetGRACE FOR 2 BROTHERS FOUNDATION: $40,163 over 3y, 15% 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.

Wyoming Community Fou…Wyoming Governor's Re…Boys & Girls Clubs of…Amazonsmile Foundation
Wyoming Community FoundationWY17.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Wyoming Community Foundation · Wyoming Governor's Residence Foundation · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · 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 Boys and Girls Club of Cheyenne Wyoming Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boys and Girls Club of Cheyenne Wyoming Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    5report 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, FY20–24
    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 9 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boys and Girls Club of Cheyenne Wyoming’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