Skip to content
Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica Inc

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

$2.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$268k
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, FY2023 to 2025.

Youth Development$4.9MPublic Benefit$219kHuman Services$188k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $2,043,129, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,507,458 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $464,329 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.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k8 grants · $1.3M
  • $250k+3 grants · $777k
$195,961
Median grant
1
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARSON$267,638
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LA HARBOR$258,115
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF METRO LOS ANGELES$250,961
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LA$227,521
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY$218,413
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK INC$195,961
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PASADENA$173,094
LOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB$167,651
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH$156,551
RAND CORPORATION$71,016
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS$56,208
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, $188k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%ST JOSEPH CENTER: $188k → 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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.1M · 10 repeat orgs$188k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
1

Total granted

$5.1M
$188k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+20%
+24%

Still filing today

90%
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%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24’25
Youth DevelopmentEducationPublic BenefitHuman 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 CLUBS OF LONG BEACH
    3× · 2023–2025 · $569k · revenue +20%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $553k · revenue +25%
  • TB
    THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK AND GREATER EAST VALLEY INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $553k · revenue +48%

Funded once

  • SJ
    ST JOSEPH CENTER
    one grant, 2023 · $188k · revenue +24%
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 Clubs of Bandera County

Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.

Recreation & Sports
3
Boys & Girls Club of San Fernando Valley

Boys and girls clubs provide a safe place for youth to develop character, leadership, education, career guidance, health, art, sports and fitness while becoming responsible and caring citizens.

—
4
The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those most in need of our services, to realize and develop their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens in a global society.

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of Carlsbad

To provide activities and experiences that enrich the lives of young people, inspiring and enabling them to reach their full potential.

Youth Development
6
Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica Inc

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

Youth Development
7
Boys & Girls Clubs of the North Valley

To inspire and enable all young people to reach their full potential as caring, productive, and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
8
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
9
Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest Virginia Inc

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

Youth Development
10
Boys and Girls Club of Santa Barbarainc

The club provides a safe environment for children in the santa barbara area to develop self-esteem, values and skills.

Youth Development
11
The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore

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

Youth Development
12
Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater St Louis Inc

To inspire and enable youth ages 6 to 18 to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens. the boys and girls clubs of greater st. louis provides recreational, athletic and educational facilities for youth in…

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Los Angeles; the most unlike its peers is The Rand Corporation. 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

10 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. 10 of the 11 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES: $1,040,900 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELESBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH: $569,450 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACHBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON INC: $553,451 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PASADENA: $538,501 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PASADENABOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR: $443,451 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LOS ANGELES HARBORLOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $553,449 · OtherLOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS …Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley: $520,450 · OtherBoys & Girls Club of West…CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $140,553 · OtherCALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF BO…THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK AND GREATER EAST VALLEY INC: $553,450 · EducationTHE BOYS & …The Rand Corporation: $219,433 · Public BenefitST JOSEPH CENTER: $187,814 · Human Services
Youth Development$3,145,753Other$1,214,452Education$553,450Public Benefit$219,433Human Services$187,814

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES: $1,040,900 over 3y, 4.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH: $569,450 over 3y, 4.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON INC: $553,451 over 3y, 4.4% of budgetTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK AND GREATER EAST VALLEY INC: $553,450 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetLOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $553,449 over 3y, 8.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PASADENA: $538,501 over 3y, 7.0% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley: $520,450 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR: $443,451 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetThe Rand Corporation: $219,433 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetST JOSEPH CENTER: $187,814 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.

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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of…California Community …The Los Angeles Count…The Green FoundationThe Rose Hills Founda…Elbridge Stuart Found…The Ralph M Parsons F…Los Angeles Lakers Yo…La84 FoundationUnited Way IncThe Ahmanson Foundati…Good360
Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaGA21.7× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · California Community Foundation · The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs · The Green Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · Elbridge Stuart Foundation Dba Stuart Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · Los Angeles Lakers Youth Foundation · La84 Foundation · United Way Inc · The Ahmanson Foundation · Good360

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 Santa Monica Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 11 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 Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica’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