· Public charity
Good Sports Inc
The mission is to increase youth participation in sports, fitness, and recreational progams by targeting one of the major obstacles limiting participation - access to sports equipment.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
Grant detail is referenced in an attached schedule not included in the e-file. Total reported in the filing: $12,531,021.
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.
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.
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.
Youth sports
Sports program for youth
Youth sports - physical education & skills development
Youth Sports activities
Provide a competitive and supportive environment for youth athletes to develop as basketball players and learn important life lessons along the way.
Youth development
Youth Baseball league
Youth academic and physical health devel
Youth Athletic program
The program was formed to foster, promote, encourage and support the playing of soccer in the city of rye, new york.
Recretion and education for kids
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of Mount Vernon New York Inc and the most unlike its peers is Bridgewater Homes Assisted Living I. 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 14 years old; the field is 16. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 13% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 7% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
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: The George W Bush Foundation · Womens Sports Foundation · Laureus Sport for Good Foundation USA · Dick's Sporting Goods Foundation · Digital Promise Global · The Mr Holland's Opus Foundation · Save the Music Foundation · Justin J Watt Foundation Inc · Round It Up America Inc · United States Soccer Foundation Inc · GenYOUTH Incorporated · Project Lead the Way 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.