Loading…
· Public charity
BOYS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA INC
Provide youth a safe and productive place to go when they need it most: after school and non-school days.
$1.3M
Granted FY2023
10
Grants
1
Communities
$242k
Largest
01What you fund
01FY2023 · 10 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2023
- $10k–50k2 grants · $81k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $1.2M
$163,771
Median grant
1
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
- BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LA$242,292
- BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PASADENA$193,544
- ST JOSEPH CENTER$187,814
- LOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB$169,778
- BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK INC$163,771
- BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH$137,037
- BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARSON$83,333
- RAND CORPORATION$59,398
- BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LA HARBOR$49,380
- CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS$31,350
02The need
02
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY23–23, $188k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your field
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.
1
Boys Girls Club
—
2
Boys & Girls Clubs of Bandera County
Enable young people especially from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential.
Recreation & Sports
3
Boys & Girls Clubs
To enable youth to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
Youth Development
4
Boys and Girls Clubs
To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens.
Unclassified
5
Boys & Girls Club of San Marcos
To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as responsible and caring citizens.
—
6
Boys and Girls Clubs
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, caring and responsible community members.
Youth Development
7
The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc
To enable youth to realize and develop their full potential as citizens in a global society.
—
8
Boys & Girls Club
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
—
9
Boys & Girls Club of Merced County
Operate and run a boys and girls club for merced, california
Youth Development
10
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.
—
11
Boys & Girls Clubs
To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
Education
12
Boys and Girls Clubs of Sarasota and
Youth Development
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro and 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.
03the grantee network
9 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
9/9
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Youth Development$705,586Other$201,128Human Services$187,814Education$163,771Public Benefit$59,398
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 METRO LA ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PASADENA ↗
- Who funds ST JOSEPH CENTER ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARSON ↗
- Who funds RAND CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LA HARBOR ↗
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.
Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaGA20× affinity7 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 Rose Hills Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · La84 Foundation · United Way Inc · The Ahmanson Foundation · Good360 · Los Angeles Lakers Youth Foundation · Great Public Schools Now · Rite Aid Healthy Futures · The Annenberg 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 organisation BOYS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA INC 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
04Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: LOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~2 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 6 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
6 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +98% since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 237304197 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on LOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 8% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Boys Club of Santa Monica Inc?
Find your warmest path to Boys Club of Santa Monica Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines