Skip to content
Project Go Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Project Go Inc

Project GO, Inc.

$171k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$70k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Housing & Shelter$694kFood & Nutrition$685kHuman Services$369kCrime & Legal$45k
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $51k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $120k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Lighthouse Counseling & FRC$70,000
Crisis Intervention Services$50,000
Sierra Senior Services$25,931
Auburn Interfaith Food Closet$25,000
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 (FY17–24, $306k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Child Advocates of Placer CTY: $45k → 6%Lighthouse Counseling & FRC: $70k → 6%Lighthouse Counseling & FRC: $60k → 6%Lighthouse Counseling & FRC: $29k → 6%Advocates for Mentally Ill Ho: $37k → 6%Advocates for Mentally Ill Ho: $33k → 6%Advocates for Mentally Ill Ho: $32k → 6%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 9 repeat orgs$87k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
2

Total granted

$1.7M
$87k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+67%

Still filing today

89%
50%

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
Human ServicesFood & NutritionHealthOther
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

  • VO
    VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $495k · revenue +37%
  • SS
    SIERRA SENIOR SERVICES DBA MEALS ON WHEELS TAHOE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $278k · revenue +86%
  • CI
    CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES DBA SIERRA COMMUNITY HOUSE
    7× · 2018–2024 · $265k · revenue +226%

Funded once

  • CO
    CASA of Placer Yuba and Suttergraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $45k · revenue +67%
  • RH
    ROSEVILLE HOMESTART INC
    one grant, 2017 · $42k
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
Advocates for the Mentally Ill Housing- Placer Inc

To House and Support the most vulnerable residents of the Sierra Region.

Health
2
The Samaritan Center-Simi Valley

The mission of the Samaritan Center-Simi Valley is to offer people experiencing housing and food insecurity supportive services essential to human dignity.

Housing & Shelter
3
Interfaith Food Ministry Nevada County

A community where no one should feel the hurt of hunger. Interfaith Food Ministry feeds the hungry and works to reduce food insecurity in Nevada County. We help to sustain health, human dignity and the opportunity for individuals to…

Food & Nutrition
4
Butte Emergency Food Bank

Provide food for individuals in need

—
5
Sierra Senior Providers Inc

Provide essential services to qualified seniors which includes nutritious meals for senior citizens of Tuolumne County.

Human Services
6
Fish of South Valley San Jose

FISH of South Valley San Jose provides emergency food assistance to those who are in need. Our dedicated team of volunteers serve our clients with dignity and respect as we help to combat food insecurity in our community.

Food & Nutrition
7
Foothills Food Bank

Provide food and financial assistance to the local community.

—
8
Foodlink for Tulare County Inc

FoodLink is committed to ending hunger by providing healthy food and nutrition education to those in need through community involvement.

Food & Nutrition
9
Visalia Emergency Aid Council Inc

Feed and shelter the poor

Human Services
10
Rainier Valley Food Bank

Our mission is to nourish with good food, empower with knowledge, and serve with compassion.

Unclassified
11
Family Services of Tulare County Inc

The mission of Family Services is to help children, adults, and families throughout Tulare County heal from violence and thrive in healthy relationships. Family Services will accomplish this mission through direct services, advocacy,…

Human Services
12
Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras

To lead, collaborate, coordinate, develop, and implement strategies and resources to end homelessness in Nevada and Placer counties.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Crisis Intervention Services Dba Sierra Community House; the most unlike its peers is St Vincent De Paul Society Roseville Area Conference Inc. 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

11 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/11
Grantees still filing
10/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA INC: $495,171 · OtherVOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN …CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES DBA SIERRA COMMUNITY HOUSE: $265,020 · OtherCRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES DBA SIERRA COMMUNITY HOUSEST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY ROSEVILLE AREA CONFERENCE INC: $80,000 · OtherST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY ROSEVILLE AREA CONFERENCE IN…ROSEVILLE HOMESTART INC: $42,000 · OtherSIERRA SENIOR SERVICES DBA MEALS ON WHEELS TAHOE: $277,931 · Human ServicesSIERRA SENIOR SERVICES DBA MEALS ON …Lighthouse Counseling and Family Resource Center: $159,400 · Human ServicesLighthouse Counseling and Family Res…Advocates for the Mentally Ill Housing Inc: $102,000 · Human ServicesAdvocates for the Mentally Ill Housi…CASA of Placer Yuba and Sutter: $45,000 · Human ServicesCASA of Placer Yuba and SutterFEEDING THE FOOTHILLS: $102,000 · Food & NutritionFEEDING THE …AUBURN INTERFAITH FOOD CLOSET INC: $93,000 · Food & NutritionAUBURN INTER…HEALTH EDUCATION COUNCIL: $132,200 · Health
Other$882,191Human Services$584,331Food & Nutrition$195,000Health$132,200

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA INC: $495,171 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetSIERRA SENIOR SERVICES DBA MEALS ON WHEELS TAHOE: $277,931 over 8y, 9.6% of budgetCRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES DBA SIERRA COMMUNITY HOUSE: $265,020 over 7y, 2.3% of budgetLighthouse Counseling and Family Resource Center: $159,400 over 3y, 3.9% of budgetHEALTH EDUCATION COUNCIL: $132,200 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetAdvocates for the Mentally Ill Housing Inc: $102,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetFEEDING THE FOOTHILLS: $102,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetAUBURN INTERFAITH FOOD CLOSET INC: $93,000 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetST VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY ROSEVILLE AREA CONFERENCE INC: $80,000 over 2y, 8.2% of budgetCASA of Placer Yuba and Sutter: $45,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetROSEVILLE HOMESTART INC: $42,000 over 1y, 9.4% 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.

Placer Community Foun…Sacramento Region Com…Kaiser Foundation Hos…Teichert FoundationSutter Valley Hospita…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Placer Community FoundationCA22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Placer Community Foundation · Sacramento Region Community Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Teichert Foundation · Sutter Valley Hospitals · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Project Go Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Project Go Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report 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.

    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 11 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 Project Go’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