Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Forte for Children

To improve the quality of life for disadvantaged children in southern california and the communities in which we do business.

$360k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

Youth Development$2.1MArts & Culture$515kHuman Services$515kPhilanthropy$119kHousing & Shelter$46k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$60,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$671k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VISTA$60,000
CASA DE AMPARO$60,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARLSBAD$60,000
MOONLIGHT CULTURAL FOUNDATION$60,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS$60,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NORTHWEST SAN DIEGO COUNTY INC$60,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $561k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%CASA DE AMPARO: $80k → 11%CASA DE AMPARO: $70k → 11%CASA DE AMPARO: $60k → 11%CASA DE AMPARO: $60k → 11%CASA DE AMPARO: $55k → 11%CASA DE AMPARO: $42k → 11%NORTH COUNTY SOLUTIONS FOR CHANGE: $46k → 11%CASA DE AMPARO: $84k → 11%CASA DE AMPARO: $64k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$3.2M · 7 repeat orgs$106k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +45% since the first grant, against -28% for the ones you funded once.

7 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$3.2M
$46k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
-28%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k 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
Youth DevelopmentHuman ServicesArts & CulturePhilanthropyOther

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

  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF VISTA INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $562k · revenue +346%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARLSBAD
    8× · 2017–2024 · $539k · revenue +23%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $515k · revenue +172%

Funded once

  • SF
    SOLUTIONS FOR CHANGE INC
    one grant, 2017 · $46k · revenue -28%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Boys Girls Club
2
Boys and Girls Clubs of Silicon Valley

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

Youth Development
3
Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley

The club's mission is to enable all young people, specially those who need it most, to reach their potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

4
Boys and Girls Clubs of the San Luis Valley Inc

To ensure that all children and youth, especially those who need us most, are offered opportunities to realize their full potential as responsible, caring, and productive citizens of a richly diverse world.

Youth Development
5
Boys & Girls Club of South San Luis Obispo County

To operate a boys and girls club facility and after-school and summer camp programs for all area children regardless of ability to pay in the Five Cities area of San Luis Obispo County.

Youth Development
6
Boys and Girls Club of Santa Barbarainc

The club provides a safe environment for children in the santa barbara area to develop self-esteem, values and skills.

Youth Development
7
Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley

To provide opportunities for youth to learn and succeed.

Youth Development
8
Boys & Girls Club of San Fernando Valley

Boys and girls clubs provide a safe place for youth to develop character, leadership, education, career guidance, health, art, sports and fitness while becoming responsible and caring citizens.

9
Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater San Diego

The mission of the club is to inspire and enable youth to achieve academic success, build good character and responsible citizenship, and make healthy lifestyle choices.

Youth Development
10
Boys & Girls Club of North County

To promote health, social, educational, vocational, and character development of boys and girls through group activities, sports, and other programs.

Youth Development
11
Boys & Girls Club of the Coastside

To enable all young people, especially those who need it the most to reach their full potential as productive and responsible citizens. the organization achieves its mission through educational programs, enrichment activities and organized…

Youth Development
12
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

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Club of Vista Inc and the most unlike its peers is Sound Start a Sound United Foundation. 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

9 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF VISTA INC — $561,651 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF VISTA INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS — $514,801 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOSBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF OCEANSIDE INC — $454,801 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF OCEANSIDE INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARLSBAD — $538,801 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS O…BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NORTHWEST SAN DIEGO COUNTY INC — $60,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS O…Casa De Amparo — $514,801 · Human ServicesCasa De AmparoSOLUTIONS FOR CHANGE INC — $45,712 · Human ServicesSOLUTIONS FOR CHANG…MOONLIGHT CULTURAL FOUNDATION — $514,801 · Arts & CultureMOONLIGHT CULTURA…SOUND START A SOUND UNITED FOUNDATION — $119,086 · Philanthropy
Other$1,531,253Youth Development$598,801Human Services$560,513Arts & Culture$514,801Philanthropy$119,086

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF VISTA INC — $561,651 over 8y, 7.7% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARLSBAD — $538,801 over 8y, 2.9% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS — $514,801 over 8y, 4.2% of budgetCasa De Amparo — $514,801 over 8y, 0.9% of budgetMOONLIGHT CULTURAL FOUNDATION — $514,801 over 8y, 9.4% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF OCEANSIDE INC — $454,801 over 7y, 4.0% of budgetSOUND START A SOUND UNITED FOUNDATION — $119,086 over 2y, 36% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NORTHWEST SAN DIEGO COUNTY INC — $60,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSOLUTIONS FOR CHANGE INC — $45,712 over 1y, 0.9% of budget
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 AND GIRLS CLUB OF VISTA INC
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CARLSBAD
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS
  • Who funds Casa De Amparo
  • Who funds MOONLIGHT CULTURAL FOUNDATION
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF OCEANSIDE INC
  • Who funds SOUND START A SOUND UNITED FOUNDATION
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF NORTHWEST SAN DIEGO COUNTY INC
  • Who funds SOLUTIONS FOR CHANGE INC

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.

Issa Family FoundationCA20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Issa Family Foundation · Walter J & Betty C Zable Foundation · The Conrad Prebys Foundation · Rancho Santa Fe Foundation · The Nordson Corporation Foundation · The San Diego Foundation · Boys and Girls Aid Society of San Diego Ltd · David C Copley Foundation · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Sempra Foundation · Good360 · McCarthy Family Foundation 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 Forte for Children 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%your 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
    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 · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Forte for Children?

    Find your warmest path to Forte for Children 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 9 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph