Skip to content
Optimist Club of Country Club at a glance

· Public charity

Optimist Club of Country Club

To provide companionship and guidance to underprivileged and abused children

$493k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$91k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Youth Development$1.2MHealth$140kRecreation & Sports$122kPhilanthropy$56kHuman Services$32kEducation$21kReligion$11kCommunity Improvement$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $421,344, the rows itemized in this filing. The $493,163 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $71,819 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

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $176k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $245k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Others$90,686
Compassion Planet$79,797
Playmakers$75,000
Paradise Oask Youth Services$42,411
Mesa Verde Athletics$30,000
Neighborhood Wellness Foundation$25,000
Morton Golf Foundation$24,599
Sacramento Splash$20,000
A Little T&C$12,251
Triad family Services$11,600
Social Venture Partners of Sacramen$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 (FY22–25, $45k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 45% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%CASA: $25k → 6%A Little T&C: $12k → 12%A Little T&C: $8k → 12%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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 15 repeat orgs$268k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -4% since the first grant, against -5% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
14

Total granted

$1.3M
$198k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-4%
-5%

Still filing today

60%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionOther
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

  • CP
    COMPASSION PLANET
    2× · 2024–2025 · $213k · revenue +8%
  • AL
    A Little T&C
    2× · 2024–2025 · $20k · revenue +23% · 34% of their budget
  • SV
    SOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS OF SACRAMENTO
    2× · 2022–2025 · $20k · revenue +612%

Funded once

  • CC
    CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
    one grant, 2017 · $31k
  • P
    PLAYMAKERS
    one grant, 2017 · $30k
  • CO
    CASA of Placer Yuba and Suttergraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +115%
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
Focus Forward

To serve youth in the fresno county juvenile justice and foster care systems

Health
2
Tahoe Youth Sports Development
Recreation & Sports
3
United Playaz

United Playaz is a San Francisco-based violence prevention and youth development organization. We provide a comprehensive range of services to prepare vulnerable youth for higher education, employment, and healthy living within a safe,…

Youth Development
4
So Cal Aces Baseball Club

Youth sports

Religion
5
Racers Youth Fastpitch

Teach teamwork and leadership

Recreation & Sports
6
Bright Futures for Youth

To ignite the potential of youth today for vibrant communities tomorrow. We offer positive experiences, environments and relationships and a foundation for youth to grow, learn and develop into happy, self-sufficient young adults.

Human Services
7
Sbds Sports Academy Sacramento
Recreation & Sports
8
Mlb-Mlbpa Youth Development Foundation
Recreation & Sports
9
Future Talent of Silicon Valley

Mission Statement & Exempt Purpose: First Tee - Silicon Valley develops youth through golf. We enable kids and teens to build the strength of character that empowers them through a lifetime of new challenges. By seamlessly integrating the…

Recreation & Sports
10
Stanford Youth Solutions dba Stanford Sierra Youth & Families

To help solve the most challenging issues facing youth and families in northern california by providing tailored services from counseling and therapy to alternative placements with an end result of permanently connecting our young clients…

Human Services
11
New Day Employment

Youth Resiliency Program is a 6-8 week bootcamp that teaches soft skills for successful living. It utilitzes a curriculum that guides youth away from negative behavior patterns and towards positivity.

Employment
12
Oakland Kids First

The mission of Oakland Kids First is to increase youth voice, leadership and power to create engaging and equitable public schools where all students learn and lead.

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Casa of Placer Yuba and Sutter; the most unlike its peers is Neighborhood Wellness 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

20 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. 20 of the 33 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/20
Grantees still filing
8/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Others: $302,340 · OtherOthersEvolve You Foundation: $231,279 · OtherEvolve You FoundationSAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: $82,500 · OtherSAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTParadise Oask Youth Services: $58,031 · OtherParadise Oask Youth ServicesOther Charitable Orgs: $56,331 · OtherOther Charitable OrgsCHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS: $31,022 · Other+10 more: $124,520 · Other+10 moreCOMPASSION PLANET: $212,899 · Food & NutritionCOMPASSION PLAN…THE PLAYMAKERS ORGANIZATION INC: $150,000 · Youth DevelopmentTHE PLAYMAKE…PARADISE OAKS YOUTH SERVICES: $24,938 · Youth DevelopmentPARADISE OAK…ABOUT KIDZ: $45,993 · EducationSacramento Splash: $20,000 · EducationBRADSHAW CHRISTIAN SCHOOL: $15,065 · EducationMIRA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL - I B PARENTS ORGANIZATION: $5,903 · EducationPLAYMAKERS: $30,000 · Recreation & SportsHYPE FASTPITCH: $25,000 · Recreation & SportsMORTON GOLF FOUNDATION: $13,887 · Recreation & SportsCASA of Placer Yuba and Sutter: $25,000 · Human ServicesA Little T&C: $20,251 · Human ServicesSUPPORTING THE TAYLOR HOUSE INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesEl Dorado Community Foundation: $30,000 · PhilanthropySOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS OF SACRAMENTO: $20,000 · PhilanthropyNeighborhood Wellness Foundation: $25,000 · Community ImprovementHOOKED ON FISHING NOT ON VIOLENCE FOUNDATION: $15,000 · Community Improvement
Other$886,023Food & Nutrition$212,899Youth Development$174,938Education$86,961Recreation & Sports$68,887Human Services$65,251Philanthropy$50,000Community Improvement$40,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEvolve You Foundation: $231,279 over 7y, 70% of budgetCOMPASSION PLANET: $212,899 over 2y, 7.2% of budgetTHE PLAYMAKERS ORGANIZATION INC: $150,000 over 3y, 30% of budgetABOUT KIDZ: $45,993 over 4y, 6.2% of budgetEl Dorado Community Foundation: $30,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetHYPE FASTPITCH: $25,000 over 3y, 5.1% of budgetCASA of Placer Yuba and Sutter: $25,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetNeighborhood Wellness Foundation: $25,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetPARADISE OAKS YOUTH SERVICES: $24,938 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTRIAD FAMILY SERVICES: $23,150 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetA Little T&C: $20,251 over 2y, 34% of budgetSUPPORTING THE TAYLOR HOUSE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetSOCIAL VENTURE PARTNERS OF SACRAMENTO: $20,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetSacramento Splash: $20,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetBRADSHAW CHRISTIAN SCHOOL: $15,065 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCITY YEAR INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMORTON GOLF FOUNDATION: $13,887 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetMIRA LOMA HIGH SCHOOL - I B PARENTS ORGANIZATION: $5,903 over 1y, 12% 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.

Sacramento Region Com…Teichert FoundationSierra Health Foundat…Baird Foundation IncMorgan Stanley Global…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Sacramento Region Community FoundationCA21.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sacramento Region Community Foundation · Teichert Foundation · Sierra Health Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Optimist Club of Country Club funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Optimist Club of Country Club. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 11%
  • City Year Inc: 11% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
6report 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 Optimist Club of Country Club?

Find your warmest path to Optimist Club of Country Club 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 33 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 Optimist Club of Country Club’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