· Public charity
Boys and Girls Clubs of the Twin Cities
To enable young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $465,485 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $494,510 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $29,025 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2019
- $10k–50k7 grants · $226k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $240k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CENTRAL MN | $99,627 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ROCHESTER | $80,737 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE NORTHLAND | $59,532 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE NORTH STAR | $45,475 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BEMIDJI | $41,092 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEECH LAKE | $36,289 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE WHITE EARTH RESERVATION | $35,730 |
| RED LAKE NATION BOYS & GIRLS CLUB | $29,242 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF DETROIT LAKES | $24,948 |
| MN ALLIANCE OF BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB | $12,813 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 69% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +18% since the first grant, against -28% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2019, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2019, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL MINNESOTA3× · 2017–2019 · $366k · revenue +44%
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ROCHESTER3× · 2017–2019 · $240k · revenue +18%
- BCBOYS' CLUB OF DULUTH3× · 2017–2019 · $192k · revenue +10%
Funded once
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE TWIN CITIES FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue -28%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.
To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
To empower all youth, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.
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.
The corporation provides youth with after school activities to promote education, sports and recreation.
To enable all young people, especially those who need them most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need it most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
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…
Programs for local youth
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of the North Star and the most unlike its peers is Boys and Girls Club of Rochester. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 11 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL MINNESOTA ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ROCHESTER ↗
- Who funds BOYS' CLUB OF DULUTH ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE NORTH STAR ↗
- Who funds RED LAKE NATION BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE LEECH LAKE AREA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DETROIT LAKES ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE TWIN CITIES FOUNDATION ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Otto Bremer Trust · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Boys and Girls Clubs of the Twin Cities funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.