· Public charity
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
The mission of the organization is to operate exclusively for the benefit of, or to carry out the purposes of, boys and girls clubs of america, a d.c.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k74 grants · $564k
- $10k–50k240 grants · $6.1M
- $50k–250k349 grants · $45M
- $250k+134 grants · $69M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| B&GCS OF METRO ATLANTA | $2,704,861 |
| B&GCS OF GREATER DALLAS | $2,083,957 |
| B&GC OF ST JOSEPH COUNTY | $1,432,514 |
| B&GCS OF THE LOS ANGELES HARBOR | $1,308,954 |
| B&GC OF GREATER MILWAUKEE | $1,269,151 |
| B&GC OF GREATER HOUSTON | $1,195,006 |
| B&GC OF WHITTIER | $1,171,683 |
| B&GCS OF SANTA MONICA | $1,062,018 |
| B&GCS OF GREATER NORTHWEST INDIANA (PORTER COUNTY) | $1,056,791 |
| B&GC OF ELKHART COUNTY INC-B&GC OF GREATER GOSHEN | $1,015,175 |
| B&GCS OF MT VERNON | $1,006,940 |
| B&GC OF BLOOMINGTON | $981,496 |
| B&GC OF THE EAST VALLEY | $959,077 |
| B&GCS OF GREATER FORT WORTH | $867,351 |
| THE B&GC OF BURBANK AND GREATER EAST VALLEY INC | $846,835 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $5.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% of those 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +61% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
975 repeat relationships — 703 still active in FY2024, 272 since wound down; 44 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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 GREATER DALLAS INC8× · 2017–2024 · $15M · revenue +22% · 32% of their budget
- BABoys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc8× · 2017–2024 · $9.3M · revenue +161%
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC8× · 2017–2024 · $5.7M · revenue +21%
Funded once
- TSTHE SALVATION ARMY BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NC & SCone grant, 2019 · $789k
- BOB&GC OF MID CENTRAL COASTone grant, 2019 · $530k
- BOB&GC OF METRO PHOENIX INCone grant, 2019 · $473k
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.
The corporation provides youth with after school activities to promote education, sports and recreation.
None
To enable all young peolple,especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
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.
We are committed to promoting safe, positive, and inclusive environments for all. The three focus areas include: being able to ensure youth graduate from high school with a plan for the future, demonstrating good character, citizenship,…
To inspire and enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens in the southeast idaho area.
Provide a safe place for kids and provide afterschool programs.
Benefiting nbsp;the nbsp;boys nbsp;and nbsp;girls nbsp;clubs nbsp;of nbsp;america nbsp;incorporated nbsp;operates nbsp;donated nbsp;vessels nbsp;(boats) nbsp;residential nbsp;properties nbsp;and nbsp;other nbsp;assets nbsp;for nbsp;the…
To promote the well-being of children 6 weeks to 19 years old.
The organization serves to provide diversified activities for area youth. these core programs include character and leadership development, education and career development, health and life skills, the arts and sports, fitness and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest Virginia Inc and the most unlike its peers is Native Star Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 45 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
838 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. 838 of the 1,250 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 GREATER DALLAS INC ↗
- Who funds Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta Inc ↗
- Who funds Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Houston Inc ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER WASHINGTON AND AFFILIATE ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF PUERTO RICO INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF THE TWIN CITIES ↗
- Who funds Boys & Girls Clubs of Southcentral Alaska ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE NORTHERN INDIANA CORRIDOR INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF PHILADELPHIA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHERN NEVADA ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE TENNESSEE VALL ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds UNION LEAGUE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BROWARD COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE NORTHERN PLAINS INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NORTH ALABAMA ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER INC ↗
- Who funds THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER ST LOUIS INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO DENVER INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS CLUB OF GREATER KANSAS CITY ↗
- Who funds BOYS CLUB OF PHARR ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF MIAMI INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SONOMA-MARIN ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DURANT ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF DELAWARE INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO ↗
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) · Inspire Brands Foundation Inc · Cal Ripken Sr Foundation Inc · Rite Aid Healthy Futures · Pacific Youth Foundation · National Congress of American Indians Fund · The Jcpenney Foundation · The Gap Foundation · Dick's Sporting Goods Foundation · Good360 · Boys Club of Wake County Inc · Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc
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 & Girls Clubs of America 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.
- Boys & Girls Clubs of Delaware Inc — 33% of income from government
- The Boys and Girls Clubs of Hartford — 20% of income from government
- Boys and Girls Club of Burlington Inc — 16% of income from government
- The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore — 2% of income from government
- Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston Inc — 2% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Boys & Girls Clubs of America?
Find your warmest path to Boys & Girls Clubs of America through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.