· Private foundation
Easton Sports Development Foundation II
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k37 grants · $44k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $95k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $303k
- $250k+8 grants · $11M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| EASTON SPORTS DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION | $4,040,000 |
| THE UCLA FOUNDATION | $3,500,000 |
| USA ARCHERY | $850,000 |
| NFAA FOUNDATION | $576,250 |
| CSUN FOUNDATION | $500,000 |
| USA CYCLING INC | $480,000 |
| UCLA FOUNDATION | $445,000 |
| OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE | $250,000 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA PARKS & WILDLIFE | $100,000 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA GAME FISH & PARKS | $100,000 |
| PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION | $52,758 |
| BREAK THE BARRIERS | $50,000 |
| ARCHERS USA FOUNDATION | $40,000 |
| DATUS ARCHERY CLUB | $40,000 |
| PACIFICA CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL | $15,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $177k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 96% 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.
60 repeat relationships — 18 still active in FY2025, 42 since wound down; 31 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $997k 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
- ESEASTON SPORTS DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION7× · 2019–2025 · $12M · revenue +72% · 67% of their budget
- NANATIONAL ARCHERY ASSOCIATION OF THE US9× · 2017–2025 · $6.3M · revenue +42%
- CSCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE FOUNDATION3× · 2019–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +130%
Funded once
- NINATIONAL INTERSCHOLASTIC CYCLING ASSOCIATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $113k · revenue +134%
- CBCOLLEGE BASEBALL FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $105k · revenue +199% · 54% of their budget
- FOFRIENDS OF FONDATION DE FRANCE INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $105k · revenue +439%
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.
Girl scouting builds girls of courage, confidence and character who make the world a better place.
The mission of scouting america is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the scout oath and law. (continued on schedule o)programs of scouting america and grand…
Rooted in the liberal arts & sciences & lutheran expression of the christian faith, & is committed to offering a challenging education that develops qualities of mind, spirit, & body necessary for a rewarding life of leadership & service…
The University of New Haven is a student-centered comprehensive university with an emphasis on excellence in liberal arts and professional education. Our mission is to prepare our students to lead purposeful and fulfilling lives in a…
The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.
The bac is committed to provide excellence in design education grounded in practice and accessible to diverse communities.
The corporation shall promote, within the territory covered by the charter from time to time granted it by the boy scouts of america and in accordance with the congressional charter, bylaws, and rules and regulations of the boy scouts of…
Golden gate university prepares individuals to lead and serve by providing high quality, practice-based educational programs in law, taxation, business and related professions - as a nonprofit institution - in an innovative and challenging…
Scu is a catholic and jesuit institution that makes student learning its central focus, promotes faculty and staff learning in its various forms, and exhibits organizational learning.
Girl scouting builds girls of courage, confidence and character, who make the world a better place.
A private institution of higher education, offering both undergraduate and graduate courses to students.
Wilson college empowers students to be confident and critical thinkers, creative visionaries, effective communicators, honorable leaders, and agents of justice.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Girl Scouts of Northeast Texas and the most unlike its peers is Easton Sports Development 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 46 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 6% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
98 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. 98 of the 227 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 EASTON SPORTS DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ARCHERY ASSOCIATION OF THE US ↗
- Who funds UCLA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ARCHERY IN SCHOOLS PROGRAMS INC ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES PARKS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds USA CYCLING INC ↗
- Who funds ARCHERS USA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Break the Barriers Inc ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL INTERSCHOLASTIC CYCLING ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds COLLEGE BASEBALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF FONDATION DE FRANCE INC ↗
- Who funds LANCASTER ARCHERY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SCHOLASTIC ARCHERY ASSOCIATION CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds WEST MICHIGAN ARCHERY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CONEJO VALLEY ARCHERS INC ↗
- Who funds PACIFICA CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL ↗
- Who funds Christian Youth Camps Inc ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ↗
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: Girl Scouts of the United States of America · Dick's Sporting Goods Foundation · National Council of YMCAs of the USA · Bass Pro Shops & Cabelas Outdoor Fund · NRA Foundation Inc · Illumina Corporate Foundation · Council of Independent Colleges · Td Charitable Foundation · California Community Foundation · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Publix Super Markets Charities Inc · The Community Foundation of Louisville 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 Easton Sports Development Foundation II 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology — 35% of income from government
- The Trustees of Princeton University — 11% of income from government
- Boys & Girls Club of Meriden Inc — 10% of income from government
- Boys and Girls Club of Stoneham Inc — 10% of income from government
- Brandeis University — 9% of income from government
- Southwest Florida Council Inc — 6% of income from government
- Wellesley College — 1% of income from government
- Rollins College — 0% of income from government
- Williams College — 0% 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 Easton Sports Development Foundation II?
Find your warmest path to Easton Sports Development Foundation II 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.