· Public charity
The Boston Athletic Association
The promotion of the common good and health and welfare of the general public and the encouragement of the general public to improve its physical condition by the promotion and regulation of amateur sports competition.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k22 grants · $340k
- $50k–250k7 grants · $740k
- $250k+3 grants · $1.2M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CITY OF BOSTON | $537,800 |
| COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS | $437,200 |
| REGGIE LEWIS TRACK & ATHLETIC CENTER | $250,000 |
| TOWN OF HOPKINTON | $158,600 |
| CITY OF NEWTON | $158,600 |
| TOWN OF BROOKLINE | $92,800 |
| TOWN OF NATICK | $82,600 |
| TOWN OF WELLESLEY | $82,600 |
| TOWN OF ASHLAND | $82,600 |
| CITY OF FRAMINGHAM | $82,600 |
| THE DIMOCK CENTER DEVELOPMENT OFFICE | $30,000 |
| HOPKINTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS | $25,000 |
| BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC | $22,500 |
| BLACK GIRLS RUN FOUNDATION | $16,125 |
| ADAPTIVE SPORTS NEW ENGLAND INC | $15,725 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY22–25, $70k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 61% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +26% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
32 repeat relationships — 21 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $397k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- DCDIMOCK COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC9× · 2017–2025 · $225k · revenue +40%
- TSTHE SPORTS MUSEUM OF NEW ENGLAND INC8× · 2017–2024 · $67k · revenue +51%
EMERALD NECKLACE CONSERVANCY INC7× · 2017–2025 · $62k · revenue +157%
Funded once
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Incgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $34k · revenue +44%- MGMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATEDone grant, 2021 · $34k
- NBNATIONAL BLACK MARATHONERS ASSOCIATIONone grant, 2022 · $30k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
The promotion of the common good and health and welfare of the general public and the encouragement of the general public to improve its physical condition by the promotion and regulation of amateur sports competition. the baa operates in…
The Greater Boston Track Club provides a friendly, competitive, team-oriented environment to those who compete at the national, regional, and local level. Financial support may be provided to teams and individuals to compete at major…
To build leaders on the court, in the classroom, and in the community by providing academic, wellness, and social development programs alongside recreational and competitive tennis instruction for youth and adults. sportsmen's tennis and…
The organization was formed to support the growth of track and field across needham and metro west (boston) area by providing safe and fun running and field event experiences for about 1,700 children aged 5-14 with a goal of creating a…
Boys & girls clubs of boston (bgcb) stands as a transformative force in boston and chelsea, where high expectations unlock greatness. we believe that every young person who walks through our doors carries limitless potential. through our…
To prepare and develop competent and successful college and professional soccer players by providing the highest quality soccer resources, opportunities and programs to the top soccer players in the greater boston area.the organization…
To be a leader in advancing participation, education, and excellence in skating for people of all ages, abilities, and means.
Dreamfar is a mentor-supported distance running program serving greater Boston teens of diverse backgrounds and abilities. Our mission is to help teens develop physical and mental wellness, community, and confidence to pursue their goals…
The organization's mission is youth development and life-skill development activities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Special Olympics Massachusetts Inc and the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. 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 24 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
52 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 52 of the 74 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Roxbury Community College Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds DIMOCK COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Boston Charitable Trust Fund City of Boston Trust Office ↗
- Who funds THE SPORTS MUSEUM OF NEW ENGLAND INC ↗
- Who funds YOUTH ENRICHMENT SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds EMERALD NECKLACE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC GARDEN INC ↗
- Who funds AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES INC ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts State Track Coaches Assoc ↗
- Who funds 262 FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BLACK GIRLS RUN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ADAPTIVE SPORTS NEW ENGLAND INC ↗
- Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS MASSACHUSETTS INC ↗
- Who funds STRIDE FOR STRIDE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds RISE ABOVE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds HEATHER ABBOTT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE BASEBALL INC ↗
- Who funds BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Achilles International Inc ↗
- Who funds Boston Bulldogs Running Club ↗
- Who funds Spark Newton Corporation ↗
- Who funds GIRLS ON THE RUN GREATER BOSTON ↗
- Who funds ATHLETES UNLIMITED NEWTON MA INC ↗
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: GivenGain Foundation USA · Boston Foundation Inc · Eastern Bank Foundation · The New England Patriots Charitable Foundation Inc · Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Inc · The Red Sox Foundation Inc · Yawkey Foundation II · Boston Bruins Charitable Foundation Inc · American Tower Corporation Foundation Inc · Liberty Mutual Foundation Inc · Cummings Foundation Grants Inc (Fka Oneworld Boston Inc) · Good Sports 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.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Boston Athletic Association funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Massachusetts Sickle Cell Associationinc — 56% of income from government
- All Dorchester Sports & Leadership Inc — 21% of income from government
- Rise Above Foundation Inc — 14% of income from government
- Charles River Watershed Association Inc — 8% of income from government
- Boys & Girls Clubs of Dorchester Inc — 7% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Inc — 6% of income from government
- The Sports Museum of New England Inc — 5% of income from government
- Evkids Inc — 4% of income from government
- Girls On the Run Greater Boston — 4% of income from government
- Special Olympics Massachusetts Inc — 1% of income from government
- The Baseball Inc — 1% of income from government
- Friends of the Public Garden Inc — 1% of income from government
- Franciscan Hospital for Children — 0% of income from government
- Emerald Necklace Conservancy Inc — 0% of income from government
- Boston Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.