Skip to content
Pacific Youth Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Pacific Youth Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
25
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$284k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Youth Development$11MHuman Services$1.8MEducation$98kPublic Safety & Disaster$26kFood & Nutrition$8kScience & Tech$5kInternational$2kPublic Benefit$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k16 grants · $423k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $477k
  • $250k+1 grant · $284k
$25,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$46M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV$283,500
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER$223,900
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER$168,900
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII$84,000
BOYS GIRLS CLUBS OF CATHEDRAL CITY$47,500
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF FONTANA$47,500
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS$44,000
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER$43,000
BOYS GIRLS CLUB - SANTA CLARITA VAL$42,000
SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV$32,828
BOYS GIRLS CLUB - SANTA CLARITA VAL$30,000
BOYS GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA$30,000
WORLD FEDERATION OF YOUTH CLUBS$25,000
WORLD FEDERATION OF YOUTH CLUBS$15,000
WORLD FEDERATION OF YOUTH CLUBS$15,000
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 (FY18–24, $1.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIVE: $350k → 14%SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIVE: $325k → 14%SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV: $284k → 14%SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV: $270k → 14%SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV: $260k → 14%SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV: $210k → 14%SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV: $33k → 14%SOCIAL EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIV: $17k → 14%SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIVE: $10k → 14%SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIVE: $5k → 14%MEALS ON WHEELS WEST: $5k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
ID
OR
NV
CA
VA
MD
AZ
NM
HI
GA
TX
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$12M · 37 repeat orgs$932k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +93% since the first grant, against +51% for those funded once.

37 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2024, 25 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

37
43

Total granted

$12M
$932k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+93%
+51%

Still filing today

70%
51%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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 DevelopmentEducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $1.9M · revenue +623% · 30% of their budget
  • SE
    SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIVE
    6× · 2019–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +23% · 90% of their budget
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $1.4M · revenue +46%

Funded once

  • CD
    CLUB DE NINOS Y NINAS CDMX Y ESTADO DE MEXICO
    one grant, 2019 · $100k
  • LC
    LA COUNTY ALLIANCE FOR BOYS GIRLS C
    one grant, 2021 · $94k
  • SB
    South Bay Youth Clubs Inc
    one grant, 2017 · $44k
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
Boys Girls Club
—
2
Boys and Girls Club of Augusta/Waynesboro

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
3
Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley

To provide opportunities for youth to learn and succeed.

Youth Development
4
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.

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of Bandera County

Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.

Recreation & Sports
6
Boys & Girls Club of Merced County

Operate and run a boys and girls club for merced, california

Youth Development
7
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
8
The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those most in need of our services, to realize and develop their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens in a global society.

—
9
Boys & Girls Clubs of the San Gorgonio Pass

To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

Education
10
Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest Virginia Inc

To enable and inspire all young people, ages five to eighteen, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens.

Youth Development
11
Boys and Girls Clubs of Cascade County

Enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens

Youth Development
12
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Clinch Valley

Provide youth ages 5-17 with character development, leadership skills, education, career guidance, training for healthy habits, and life skills development to help them reach their full potential as caring, productive, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Boys & Girls Clubs of the Olympic Peninsula; the most unlike its peers is Mckinley Elementary School Pta. 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

53 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. 53 of the 81 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
25
Early backer (in before they grew)
49/53
Grantees still filing
44/53
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER INC: $1,921,418 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER INCBOYS GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER: $1,619,960 · OtherBOYS GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIERBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII: $878,613 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAIITHE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS: $870,000 · OtherTHE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBSBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS: $349,900 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FONTANA: $329,800 · OtherBOYS GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII: $308,100 · Other+37 more: $1,482,156 · Other+37 moreBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA INC: $1,350,794 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA …BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CATHEDRAL CITY: $449,850 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CATHED…WORLD YOUTH CLUBS INC: $282,500 · Youth DevelopmentWORLD YOUTH CLUBS INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH: $198,500 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BE…MALIBU FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES: $186,688 · Youth DevelopmentMALIBU FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH A…BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SILICON VALLEY: $143,500 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $130,000 · Youth Development+22 more: $591,074 · Youth Development+22 moreSOCIAL & EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIVE: $1,763,328 · Human ServicesSOCIAL & EMOTIO…+1 more: $5,000 · Human ServicesNANCY LIEBERMAN CHARITIES: $25,000 · EducationTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK AND GREATER EAST VALLEY INC: $20,000 · EducationSEVEN ARROWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: $15,000 · EducationTOOLS FOR PEACE: $10,000 · EducationINTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $2,265 · PhilanthropySANTA MONICA ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION: $1,666 · Community Improvement
Other$7,759,947Youth Development$3,332,906Human Services$1,768,328Education$70,000Philanthropy$2,265Community Improvement$1,666

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER INC: $1,921,418 over 4y, 30% of budgetSOCIAL & EMOTIONAL WELLNESS INITIATIVE: $1,763,328 over 6y, 90% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA INC: $1,350,794 over 4y, 10% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF HAWAII: $878,613 over 4y, 5.5% of budgetTHE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS: $870,000 over 4y, 28% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CATHEDRAL CITY: $449,850 over 8y, 16% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN MARCOS: $349,900 over 7y, 3.0% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FONTANA: $329,800 over 7y, 7.6% of budgetWORLD YOUTH CLUBS INC: $282,500 over 6y, 5.1% of budgetCLUB DE NINOS Y NINAS DE MEXICO INC: $225,000 over 3y, 41% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH: $198,500 over 4y, 2.0% of budgetMALIBU FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES: $186,688 over 4y, 6.1% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SILICON VALLEY: $143,500 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $130,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SAN FRANCISCO: $82,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE NORTH VALLEY: $75,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetThe Antelope Valley Boys and Girls Club: $70,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF EL DORADO COUNTY WESTERN SLOPE: $50,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetSouth Bay Youth Clubs Inc: $43,500 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE SOUTH COAST AREA: $40,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF KOOTENAI COUNTY IDAHO INC: $30,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF OAKLAND: $30,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA: $26,574 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA: $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetNANCY LIEBERMAN CHARITIES: $25,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CORVALLIS INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetSanta Monica Education Foundation: $22,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CENTRAL NM: $20,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK AND GREATER EAST VALLEY INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF ADA CO ID: $20,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANAHEIM: $20,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of Spokane County: $20,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE CENTRAL COAST: $20,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER SACRAMENTO INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WESTERN TREASURE VALLEY: $20,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Whatcom County: $20,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of Western Lane County: $15,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL ARIZONA: $15,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetSEVEN ARROWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: $15,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of the Redwoods: $15,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTOOLS FOR PEACE: $10,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $7,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS WEST: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF FULLERTON INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetINTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $2,265 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of…Boys & Girls Clubs of…Rite Aid Healthy Futu…Good360California Community …M J Murdock Charitabl…Ford PhilanthropyDick's Sporting Goods…The Los Angeles Count…The Albertsons Compan…The Gap FoundationThe Rose Hills Founda…
Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaGA78× affinity38 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Rite Aid Healthy Futures · Good360 · California Community Foundation · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · Ford Philanthropy · Dick's Sporting Goods Foundation · The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs · The Albertsons Companies Foundation · The Gap Foundation · The Rose Hills 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 Pacific Youth Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Pacific Youth Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%23%51%90%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 16%
  • Boys & Girls Club of Corvallis Inc: 16% of income from government
  • Boys & Girls Club of Albany: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
32report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 Pacific Youth Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Pacific Youth Foundation 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 81 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-PF 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 Pacific Youth’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