Skip to content
Boys & Girls Clubs of Georgia Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Boys & Girls Clubs of Georgia Inc

To promote exclusively the social welfare of boys and girls in georgia; to provide guidance and to promote the health, social, educational, vocational, character, and cultural development of boys(continued on schedule o) and girls in georgia without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin; and to receive, invest, and disburse…

$101k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$23k
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, FY2019 to 2024.

Youth Development$548kHuman Services$39kRecreation & Sports$22kArts & Culture$9k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $88,251, the rows itemized in this filing. The $100,736 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $12,485 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k4 grants · $27k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $61k
$7,604
Median grant
1
States reached
$566k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BGC OF CENTRAL GA$23,426
BGC OF VALDOSTA$22,007
BGC OF METRO ATLANTA$15,818
BGC OF GREATER AUGUSTA$7,604
BGC OF LANIER$6,961
BGC OF ALBANY$6,435
BGC OF SOUTHEAST GEORGIA$6,000
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 (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 65% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%BGC OF BARTOW: $32k → 10%BGC OF NORTH CENTRAL GA: $10k → 11%BGC OF METRO ATLANTA: $29k → 14%BGC OF SOUTHEAST GEORGIA: $6k → 14%BGC OF NORTH GA ROME: $20k → 15%BGC OF VALDOSTA: $22k → 15%BGC OF GREATER AUGUSTA (CSRA): $9k → 18%BGC OF LAURENS & JOHNSON: $22k → 21%BGC OF CENTRAL GA: $40k → 23%BGC OF BARTOW: $17k → 10%BGC OF METRO ATLANTA: $29k → 14%BGC OF VALDOSTA: $20k → 15%BGC OF GREATER AUGUSTA: $8k → 18%BGC OF LAURENS & JOHNSON: $17k → 21%BGC OF CENTRAL GA: $34k → 23%BGC OF BARTOW: $7k → 10%BGC OF METRO ATLANTA: $16k → 14%BGC VALDOSTA: $12k → 15%BGC OF GREATER AUGUSTA (CSRA): $7k → 18%B&GC OF LAURENS & JOHNSON COUNTIES: $9k → 21%BGC OF CENTRAL GA: $26k → 23%BGC OF METRO ATLANTA: $10k → 14%BGC VALDOSTA: $9k → 15%BGC OF GREATER AUGUSTA (CSRA): $6k → 18%BGC OF CENTRAL GA: $23k → 23%BGC OF VALDOSTA: $7k → 15%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$601k · 11 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +26% since the first grant, against -27% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$601k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
-27%

Still filing today

82%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24
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

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL GEORGIA INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $123k · revenue +103%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VALDOSTA INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $70k · revenue +81%
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF LANIER INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $68k · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NORTH CENTRAL GEORGIA
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue -27%
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 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
2
Boys Girls Club
—
3
Boys & Girls Clubs of the San Gorgonio Pass

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

Education
4
Boys & Girls Club of Baldwin and Jones Co Inc

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

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Alabama Inc

To enable and motivate all youth within a safe environment to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens according to judeo-christian principles.

Youth Development
6
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
7
Boys and Girls Clubs of the Capital Area

To provide a safe, fun place where youth are inspired to make healthy, responsible choices.

Youth Development
8
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
9
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.

—
10
Boys & Girls Club of Georgetown

None

Youth Development
11
Boys and Girls Club of Bartlesville

To enable our young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their potential.

Youth Development
12
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Northwoods Inc

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

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Clubs of Gordon Murray and Whitfield Counties Inc; the most unlike its peers is Boys & Girls Club of Bartow County 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

12 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. 12 of the 13 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
6/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Inc: $82,767 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta IncBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VALDOSTA INC: $70,299 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VALDOSTA INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF LANIER INC: $67,790 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF LANIER INCBoys & Girls Club of Bartow County Inc: $56,109 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Club of Bartow County IncBoys & Girls Clubs of North Georgia Inc: $42,053 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Clubs of North Georgia IncBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF MOULTRIECOLQUITT COUNTY INC: $37,893 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF MOULTRIECOLQUITT COUNTY INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GORDON MURRAY AND WHITFIELD COUNTIES INC: $31,985 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GORDON MURRAY AND WHITFIELD COUNTIES INC+3 more: $28,164 · Youth Development+3 moreBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL GEORGIA INC: $123,496 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL GEORGI…B&GC of LaurenJohnson: $47,081 · OtherB&GC of LaurenJohnsonBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER AUGUSTA INC: $29,311 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER AUGUST…
Youth Development$417,060Other$199,888

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL GEORGIA INC: $123,496 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Inc: $82,767 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VALDOSTA INC: $70,299 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF LANIER INC: $67,790 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of North Georgia Inc: $42,053 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF MOULTRIECOLQUITT COUNTY INC: $37,893 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GORDON MURRAY AND WHITFIELD COUNTIES INC: $31,985 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER AUGUSTA INC: $29,311 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ALBANY INC: $11,778 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NORTH CENTRAL GEORGIA: $10,386 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHEAST GEORGIA INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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…Boys & Girls Clubs of…Georgia Power Foundat…Charities Aid Foundat…Good360The Blackbaud Giving …Enterprise Holdings F…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return)GA26× affinity10 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Georgia Power Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · Good360 · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · 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 Boys & Girls Clubs of Georgia Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boys & Girls Clubs of Georgia 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%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, FY20–24
    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 13 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boys & Girls Clubs of Georgia’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