Skip to content
CARE - Childrens Advocates Resource Endowment at a glance

· Public charity

CARE - Childrens Advocates Resource Endowment

The primary purpose of CARE - Childrens' Advocates Resource Endowment is to raise money for the benefit of children's charities of Kern County.

$83k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$17k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0186% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Human Services$69kYouth Development$42kArts & Culture$35kRecreation & Sports$35kHealth$23kHousing & Shelter$17kCommunity Improvement$5kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $64,616, the rows itemized in this filing. The $83,296 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $18,680 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 $10k6 grants · $48k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
$9,689
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Open Door Network$16,956
Individual grant recipient$9,759
Boys and Girls Club of Bakers$9,731
Valley Achievement Center$9,689
Individual grant recipient$7,354
Individual grant recipient$6,000
Community Action Partnership$5,127
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:

Its human-services grants (FY19–24, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 18%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 18%Open Door Network: $17k → 18%Alliance Against Family Viole: $10k → 18%Alliance Against Family Viole: $9k → 18%Alliance Against Family Viole: $8k → 18%Assistance League of Bakersfield: $6k → 18%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.

63%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$160k · 5 repeat orgs$96k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +51% since the first grant, against +51% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
8

Total granted

$160k
$58k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+51%
+51%

Still filing today

80%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 41% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $38k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesRecreation & SportsArts & CultureYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • TO
    THE OPEN DOOR NETWORK
    4× · 2019–2024 · $44k · revenue +722%
  • KC
    KERN COUNTY MUSEUM FOUNDATION
    2× · 2017–2019 · $35k · revenue +12%
  • TB
    THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF KERN COUNTY
    3× · 2018–2024 · $30k · revenue +126%

Funded once

  • JC
    Jamison Childrens Center
    one grant, 2018 · $10k
  • GE
    GOLDEN EMPIRE YOUTH TACKLE FOOTBALL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $9k · revenue +54%
  • MR
    MARE Riding Centergraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $8k · revenue +127%
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
Bakersfield Arc Inc

assist developmentally disabled individuals.

Human Services
2
Boys & Girls Club of Merced County

Operate and run a boys and girls club for merced, california

Youth Development
3
United Way of Central Eastern California Dba United Way of Kern County

The mission of the united way of kern county is to "mobilize donors, advocates and volunteers to improve lives in kern county." the organization accomplishes this by raising and investing financial resources in programs that advance the…

Philanthropy
4
Independent Living Center of Kern County

The mission of Independent Living Center of Kern County is to empower people with disabilities to grow creatively, professionally, and personally; and to educate the community about disability related issues. The vision of Independent…

Human Services
5
Kern County Cancer Foundation

Dedicated to assisting kern county residents who need financial assistance in obtaining treatment for cancer and associated diseases.

Health
6
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce

Provide support, networking, and education to the business community of bakersfield and kern county.

—
7
Kern Economic Development Corporation

Attracting new business & industry to all cities & communities in kern county. retain existing industry & compile data to attract new industry.

—
8
Bakersfield Country Club

Membership - country club.bakersfield country club is a private family club, providing social and recreational activities for the benefit of its members and their guests. the club is committed to maintain its reputation for excellence and…

—
9
Boys and Girls Clubs of Huntington Valley

To provide general, after school and day care, recreational, educational and social services for youths 2 through 18.

Youth Development
10
Boys & Girls Clubs of Bandera County

Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.

Recreation & Sports
11
Bakersfield Recovery Services

Provide residential and outpatient treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.

Health
12
The Cedars of Marin

realize each persons full potential. In pursuit of that we maintain twelve group homes in eight locations, a main campus, and we run four innovative and creative day program sites, all in Marin County, California.

Unclassified
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Boys and Girls Clubs of Kern County; the most unlike its peers is Mare Riding Center. 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 18 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/12
Grantees still filing
10/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BETHANY SERVICES INC: $25,424 · OtherBETHANY SERVICES INCJamison Childrens Center: $10,000 · OtherJamison Childrens CenterIndividual grant recipient: $9,759 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMARE Riding Center: $8,411 · OtherMARE Riding CenterIndividual grant recipient: $7,354 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $7,099 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGirl Scouts of Central California South Inc: $6,880 · OtherGirl Scouts of Central California South In…Individual grant recipient: $6,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientRM PYLES BOYS CAMP: $5,390 · OtherRM PYLES BOYS CAMPMERCY FOUNDATION BAKERSFIELD: $5,384 · OtherMERCY FOUNDATION BAKERSFIELDCommunity Action Partnership: $5,127 · OtherTHE OPEN DOOR NETWORK: $43,832 · Human ServicesTHE OPEN DOOR NETWORKASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF BAKERSFIELD: $6,164 · Human ServicesASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF B…KERN COUNTY MUSEUM FOUNDATION: $35,436 · Arts & CultureKERN COUNTY MUS…THE LEAGUE OF DREAMS INC: $25,971 · Recreation & SportsTHE LEAGUE OF D…GOLDEN EMPIRE YOUTH TACKLE FOOTBALL INC: $8,787 · Recreation & SportsGOLDEN EMPIRE Y…THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF KERN COUNTY: $29,731 · Youth DevelopmentTHE BOYS AND …Valley Achievement Center: $9,689 · Education
Other$96,828Human Services$49,996Arts & Culture$35,436Recreation & Sports$34,758Youth Development$29,731Education$9,689

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE OPEN DOOR NETWORK: $43,832 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetKERN COUNTY MUSEUM FOUNDATION: $35,436 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetTHE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF KERN COUNTY: $29,731 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE LEAGUE OF DREAMS INC: $25,971 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetBETHANY SERVICES INC: $25,424 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetValley Achievement Center: $9,689 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGOLDEN EMPIRE YOUTH TACKLE FOOTBALL INC: $8,787 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetMARE Riding Center: $8,411 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetGirl Scouts of Central California South Inc: $6,880 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF BAKERSFIELD: $6,164 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetRM PYLES BOYS CAMP: $5,390 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMERCY FOUNDATION BAKERSFIELD: $5,384 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

The Virginia and Alfr…Kern Community Founda…The Bidart Family Fou…Diane S Lake Charitab…Resnick FoundationCharities Aid Foundat…Bakersfield West Rota…The Blackbaud Giving …The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Virginia and Alfred Harrell FoundationCA26.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Virginia and Alfred Harrell Foundation · Kern Community Foundation · The Bidart Family Foundation · Diane S Lake Charitable Trust Lake Diane S Ttee · Resnick Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · Bakersfield West Rotary-Stroope Family Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 CARE - Childrens Advocates Resource Endowment funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from CARE - Childrens Advocates Resource Endowment. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to CARE - Childrens Advocates Resource Endowment?

    Find your warmest path to CARE - Childrens Advocates Resource Endowment 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.

    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 18 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 CARE - Childrens Advocates Resource Endowment’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