Skip to content
Boys Hope Girls Hope at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Boys Hope Girls Hope

Hope Ignites nurtures and guides motivated young people in need to become well-educated, career-ready men and women for others.

$750k
Granted FY2020
5
Grants FY2020
5
States reached
$59k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2020 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $111,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $749,952 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $638,952 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 · FY2020

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $52k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $59k
$14,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF SAN FRANCISCO$59,000
BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF ARIZONA$14,000
BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO$14,000
BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF COLORADO$14,000
BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF MICHIGAN INC$10,000
02The need
02

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 (FY20–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 46% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 12%BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF ARIZONA: $14k → 11%BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF MICHIGAN INC: $10k → 21%BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF COLORADO: $14k → 12%BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO: $14k → 17%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $89k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Central America and the Caribbean$89k · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: Program Services

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its 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
Hope Ignites Baltimore Inc

Boys Hope Girls Hope nurtures and guides motivated young people in need to become well-educated, career-ready men and women for others through its holistic, long-term residential and academy programming. The organization provides direct…

—
2
Hope Ignites Cincinnati

Hope Ignites Cincinnati nurtures and guides motivated young people in need to become well-educated, career-ready men and women for others through its holistic, long-term residential and academy programming. The organization provides direct…

—
3
Hope Ignites Chicago

Boys Hope Girls Hope nurtures and guides motivated young people in need to become well-educated, career-ready men and women for others through its holistic, long-term residential and academy programming. The organization provides direct…

—
4
Hope Ignites

Hope Ignites nurtures and guides motivated young people in need to become well-educated, career-ready men and women for others.

Human Services
5
Boys Hope Girls Hope

Boys Hope Girls Hope nurtures and guides motivated young people in need to become well-educated, career-ready men and women for others through its holistic, long-term residential and tutorial programming. The organization provides direct…

—
6
Hopes Path

Hope's Path is an internship program offering housing and life skill development to former foster youth while assisting them with their goals to successfully launch into sustainable independent lives knowing their value and identity in…

Human Services
7
Hope for Youth Inc

HYPE empowers historically underrepresented and underserved middle and high school students with technology skills and audience-centered programming to prepare them to become future leaders in tech careers. As a result, we are establishing…

Youth Development
8
Hope Ignites Southern California

The purpose of this organization is to establish a home environment, long term care, educational emphasis, couseling services and moral and religious structure for displaced boys and girls of california.

—
9
Reignite Hope

Restoring hope and dignity to former gang members, ex-offenders and the homeless by teaching them job skills for a career in welding.

Education
10
Hope for the Future Educational Foundation Inc
—
11
Hope for the Youth Foundation
—
12
House of Hope

We assist young mothers with housing and wrap around services.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hope Ignites St Louis; the most unlike its peers is Boys Hope Girls Hope of Ny Inc. 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

8 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.

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)
7/8
Grantees still filing
2/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $59,000 · OtherBOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF SAN FRANCISCOHope Ignites Phoenix: $14,000 · OtherHope Ignites PhoenixHOPE IGNITES COLORADO: $14,000 · OtherHOPE IGNITES COLORADOHOPE IGNITES NORTHEASTERN OHIO INC: $14,000 · OtherHOPE IGNITES NORTHEASTERN OHIO INCHope Ignites Detroit: $10,000 · OtherHope Ignites Detroit
Other$111,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF SAN FRANCISCO: $59,000 over 1y, 9.9% of budgetHope Ignites Detroit: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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.

Charities Aid Foundat…National Philanthropi…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Charities Aid Foundation AmericaVA10.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Hope Girls Hope funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boys Hope Girls Hope. 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 5 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $517k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2020, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Boys Hope Girls Hope’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