Skip to content

· Public charity

Dreambuilders Foundation Inc

The dreambuilders foundation is a non profit organization dedciated to helping financially, physically or mentally challenged youth to achieve their dreams by providing support and financial assistance to secure the equipment and opportunity needed to achieve these goals.

$981k
Granted FY2025still arriving
47
Grants FY2025still arriving
—
States reached
$108k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Human Services$1.2MInternational$818kYouth Development$788kEducation$485kFood & Nutrition$115kRecreation & Sports$81kAnimals$61kPhilanthropy$57kOther$0
02FY2025 · 47 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 47 grants below total $867,490, the rows itemized in this filing. The $981,412 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $113,922 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k16 grants · $107k
  • $10k–50k28 grants · $542k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $218k
$10,000
Median grant
—
States reached
$559k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UPLIFT EDUCATION$107,505
OPERATION WARM$55,850
STARS NASHVILLE$55,000
UNITED WAY OF CENTRAL MARYLAND$49,700
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER DALLAS$40,000
DAYSPRING CENTER$38,000
MOBILE HOPE$34,575
FIREFLY$34,000
PMR CHARITY$26,000
HAMILTON COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIO$25,920
Individual grant recipient$24,514
AMAZON$19,255
DICKS SPORTING GOODS$17,536
CONNECTEDLY$17,100
TOUCHDOWN CLUB OF ATHENS$17,000
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 (FY21–21, $31k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NORTHERN CHILDREN'S SERVICES: $20k → 22%COVENANT HOUSE: $11k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
OR
NV
OH
PA
CA
MO
KY
MD
TN
NC
LA
GA
TX
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.

42%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 29 repeat orgs$2.1M to everyone else

29 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 32 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
104

Total granted

$1.5M
$1.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+53%

Still filing today

10%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 35% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $560k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Youth DevelopmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionEducationOther
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

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $214k · revenue +50%
  • OW
    Operation Warm Inc
    3× · 2020–2022 · $122k · revenue +172%
  • GP
    GREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK
    2× · 2020–2021 · $67k · revenue +13%

Funded once

  • BO
    BGC OF GREAT DALLAS
    one grant, 2020 · $65k
  • BB
    BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTSERS OF KANSAS CITY
    one grant, 2022 · $51k
  • YO
    YMCA OF CENTRAL MARYLAND
    one grant, 2020 · $50k
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
The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens

Youth Development
2
Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Carolina

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
3
Boys & Girls Clubs of Buffalo Inc

Our mission is to provide a safe and stable experience that assures success is within reach of all our members - that they graduate from high school with plans for their futures and that they are living healthy lifestyles.

Youth Development
4
Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston Inc

Boys & girls clubs of boston (bgcb) stands as a transformative force in boston and chelsea, where high expectations unlock greatness. we believe that every young person who walks through our doors carries limitless potential. through our…

Youth Development
5
The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those most in need of our services, to realize and develop their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens in a global society.

—
6
Boys & Girls Club of the Greater Chippewa Valley Inc

The boys & girls clubs of the greater chippewa valley's mission is to inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, caring citizens.

Youth Development
7
Boys and Girls Club of Augusta/Waynesboro

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
8
Boys & Girls Club of Aberdeen Area Inc

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

—
9
Boys and Girls Clubs of N Cent Nc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need it most, to realize their full potential and to be productive, responsible, and caring citizens.

Youth Development
10
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Red River Valley

At the boys & girls clubs of the red river valley, we offer innovative out-of-school time programs designed to help youth excel in school, develop strong leadership skills, and lead healthy, productive lives. our mission is to provide a…

Youth Development
11
Boys and Girls Club of North Lake Tahoe

The mission of the Club is to inspire and enable all youth, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens. Boys & Girls Club of North Lake Tahoe has been a cornerstone of the…

Unclassified
12
Boys & Girls Clubs of Chaves & Lincoln Counties

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens of good character.

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Clubs of San Francisco; the most unlike its peers is The Elephant in the Room Inc. 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

13 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. 13 of the 165 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OPERATION WARM: $150,550 · OtherDICK'S SPORTING GOODS: $141,889 · OtherUPLIFT EDUCATION: $107,505 · Other+151 more: $2,719,785 · Other+151 moreBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $214,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER SAN DIEGO: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHERN NEVADA: $16,000 · Youth Development+1 more: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentOperation Warm Inc: $121,544 · Human ServicesNorthern Children's Services: $20,000 · Human ServicesUNDER 21: $11,000 · Human ServicesGREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $67,000 · Food & NutritionEVERY MEAL: $12,000 · Food & NutritionTHE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM INC: $11,100 · Education
Other$3,119,729Youth Development$275,000Human Services$152,544Food & Nutrition$79,000Education$11,100

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $214,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetOperation Warm Inc: $121,544 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetGREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $67,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER SAN DIEGO: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNorthern Children's Services: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHERN NEVADA: $16,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCOATS FOR KIDS-CLEVELAND: $15,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetFORWARD TOGETHER NEW ORLEANS: $12,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetTHE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM INC: $11,100 over 1y, 14% of budgetUNDER 21: $11,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ACADIANA INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds Operation Warm Inc ↗
  • Who funds GREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗

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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaGA13.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Dick's Sporting Goods Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Dreambuilders Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Dreambuilders Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 Dreambuilders Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Dreambuilders Foundation Inc 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 165 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Dreambuilders’ filings →

    More from the funding graph