Skip to content
Impact Through Golf Foundation Napa Valley at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Impact Through Golf Foundation Napa Valley

In partnership with the pga tour, to raise funds through its operation of a pga tour- sanctioned golf tournament.

$285k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Health$100kHuman Services$90kYouth Development$75kPhilanthropy$60kPublic Safety & Disaster$45kAnimals$40kPublic Benefit$20kRecreation & Sports$20k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $175k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $110k
$20,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Boys and Girls Clubs of Napa Valley$60,000
OLE HEALTH FOUNDATION$50,000
Queen of the Valley Hospital Foundation$25,000
THE DRAGON CLUB$25,000
NEWS$20,000
Jameson Animal Rescue Ranch$20,000
Community Foundation of the Napa Valley$20,000
Cameron Champ Foundation$15,000
Keller Restaurant Relief Fund$15,000
Napa Communities Firewise Foundation$15,000
Silverado Junior Golf Organization$10,000
Youth on Course$10,000
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 (FY24–24, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%NEWS: $20k → 9%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.

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$210k · 5 repeat orgs$200k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
2

Total granted

$210k
$40k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-24%
+0%

Still filing today

80%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 40% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $160k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
PhilanthropyRecreation & SportsPublic Safety & DisasterHealthAnimalsHuman ServicesOther
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

  • QO
    QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $50k · revenue -34%
  • TD
    THE DRAGON CLUB
    2× · 2023–2024 · $50k
  • JA
    Jameson Animal Rescue Ranch
    2× · 2023–2024 · $40k · revenue -24%

Funded once

  • TJ
    THE JIM AND TABITHA FURYK FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +0%
  • WF
    WEIR FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue -99%
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
Nick Janus Foundation Co Peter Janus
Health
2
Sage Valley Golf Foundation
Recreation & Sports
3
The John F Nagel Foundation
—
4
The Cameron Foundation
Education
5
The Nfg Foundation
—
6
Naugle Foundation
—
7
The Navarro Foundation
Animals
8
Cal Med Foundation
Education
9
The Weil Foundation
Health
10
The California Wellness Foundation
Philanthropy
11
The Camargo Foundation
—
12
The Jcr Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Foundation of the Napa Valley; the most unlike its peers is Weir 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

13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 of the 14 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
4/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS CLUB OF NAPA INC BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NAPA VALLEY: $60,000 · OtherBOYS CLUB OF NAPA INC BOYS & GIRLS …THE DRAGON CLUB: $50,000 · OtherTHE DRAGON CLUBWEIR FOUNDATION: $20,000 · OtherWEIR FOUNDATIONNCGA FOUNDATION: $10,000 · OtherNCGA FOUNDATIONOLE HEALTH FOUNDATION: $50,000 · PhilanthropyOLE HEALTH FOUNDATIONCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE NAPA VALLEY: $40,000 · PhilanthropyCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE…THE JIM AND TABITHA FURYK FOUNDATION: $20,000 · PhilanthropyTHE JIM AND TABITHA FURYK F…QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50,000 · HealthQUEEN OF THE…KELLER RESTAURANT RELIEF FUND: $30,000 · Public Safety & DisasterKELLER REST…THE NAPA COMMUNITIES FIREWISE FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Public Safety & DisasterTHE NAPA CO…Jameson Animal Rescue Ranch: $40,000 · AnimalsJameson An…NEWS: $40,000 · Human ServicesNEWSCAMERON CHAMP FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Recreation & SportsSilverado Junior Golf Organization Inc: $10,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$140,000Philanthropy$110,000Health$50,000Public Safety & Disaster$45,000Animals$40,000Human Services$40,000Recreation & Sports$25,000

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 CLUB OF NAPA INC BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF NAPA VALLEY: $60,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetQUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetOLE HEALTH FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF THE NAPA VALLEY: $40,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetJameson Animal Rescue Ranch: $40,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetNEWS: $40,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetKELLER RESTAURANT RELIEF FUND: $30,000 over 2y, 90% of budgetTHE JIM AND TABITHA FURYK FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCAMERON CHAMP FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetTHE NAPA COMMUNITIES FIREWISE FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNCGA FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSilverado Junior Golf Organization Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 16% 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.

McNabb FoundationPeter a & Vernice H G…Craig and Kathryn Hal…Community Foundation …Pga Tour IncRobert Lee Hudson Fou…Napa Valley Vintners …Syar Foundation Susan…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…
McNabb FoundationDE17.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: McNabb Foundation · Peter a & Vernice H Gasser Foundation · Craig and Kathryn Hall Foundation · Community Foundation of the Napa Valley · Pga Tour Inc · Robert Lee Hudson Foundation · Napa Valley Vintners Healthy Community Fund · Syar Foundation Susan L Syar Director · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Impact Through Golf Foundation Napa Valley funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Impact Through Golf Foundation Napa Valley. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 Impact Through Golf Foundation Napa Valley?

    Find your warmest path to Impact Through Golf Foundation Napa Valley 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 14 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 Impact Through Golf Foundation Napa Valley’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