Skip to content

· Public charity

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore

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

$1.1M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$210k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Youth Development$9.2MRecreation & Sports$158kCrime & Legal$61kHuman Services$30k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $30k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $1.0M
$115,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$54M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARFORD & CECIL COUNTIES$210,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND$140,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK COUNTY$130,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WESTMINSTER$120,000
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS$115,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER WASHINGTON$115,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY$107,881
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY$100,000
SALVATION ARMY BGC$30,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 60% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SILICON VALLEY: $61k → 8%SALVATION ARMY BGC: $320k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF TENNESSEE VALLEY: $77k → 12%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WESTMINSTER: $337k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK COUNTY: $190k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND: $385k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARFORD & CECIL COUNTIES: $543k → 7%PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $115k → 11%CAL RIPKEN SR FOUNDATION: $100k → 11%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: $288k → 12%IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO HELP OUR CHILDREN INC: $120k → 22%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SILICON VALLEY: $57k → 8%SALVATION ARMY BGC: $171k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF TENNESSEE VALLEY: $43k → 12%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WESTMINSTER: $234k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK COUNTY: $145k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND: $186k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARFORD & CECIL COUNTIES: $415k → 7%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: $260k → 12%IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO HELP OUR CHILDREN INC: $75k → 22%SALVATION ARMY BGC: $160k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WESTMINSTER: $215k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK COUNTY: $130k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND: $140k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARFORD & CECIL COUNTIES: $360k → 7%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: $192k → 12%SALVATION ARMY BGC: $30k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WESTMINSTER: $120k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK COUNTY: $91k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY: $485k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARFORD & CECIL COUNTIES: $210k → 7%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: $108k → 12%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER WASHINGTON: $512k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WESTMINSTER: $60k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK COUNTY: $84k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY: $384k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HARFORD & CECIL COUNTIES: $181k → 7%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: $67k → 12%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER WASHINGTON: $460k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY: $225k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER WASHINGTON: $200k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY: $157k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER WASHINGTON: $123k → 14%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY: $100k → 6%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER WASHINGTON: $115k → 14%DMV POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE: $100k → 14%DMV POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE: $50k → 14%DMV POLICE ATHLETIC LEAGUE: $45k → 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.
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 87% of The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 73% of the giving stays in MD; by stated purpose, 97%.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimorelessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.2M · 12 repeat orgs$215k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +77% since the first grant, against +51% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
1

Total granted

$9.2M
$100k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+77%
+51%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $115k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Youth DevelopmentCrime & LegalEducationOther
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 CLUBS OF HARFORD AND CECIL COUNTIES INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $1.7M · revenue +118%
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER WASHINGTON AND AFFILIATE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +74%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL
    7× · 2019–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +16%

Funded once

  • CR
    CAL RIPKEN SR FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue +51%
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
The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore

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

Youth Development
3
Boys and Girls Clubs of West Central Missouri

The mission of the boys & girls clubs of west central missouri is to inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as caring and productive citizens.

Youth Development
4
Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston Inc

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…

Youth Development
5
Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver Inc

To provide club members with a safe, supportive, fun, and enriching environment that inspires and empowers them to achieve their greatest potential. bgcmd accomplishes this mission with a foundational social- emotional learning approach…

—
6
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
7
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.

—
8
Boys & Girls Club of Greater Billerica Inc

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

Youth Development
9
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
10
Boys & Girls Club of Lewis County

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

Youth Development
11
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
12
Boys & Girls Club of Fredericksburg

Ensure that children have a safe place to go after school.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of Washington County; the most unlike its peers is The Salvation Army Services Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

14 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
12/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF HARFORD AND CECIL COUNTIES INC: $1,749,497 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF HARFORD AND CECIL COUNTIES INCBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER WASHINGTON AND AFFILIATE: $1,417,548 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER WASHINGTON AND AFFILIATEBoys and Girls Club of Westminster: $983,645 · OtherBoys and Girls Club of WestminsterTHE SALVATION ARMY SERVICES INC: $681,115 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY SERVICES INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL: $1,378,917 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDELBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: $947,488 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTYBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND: $711,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHERN MARYLANDBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK CO: $677,432 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK CODMV PAL INC: $208,388 · Youth Development+3 more: $353,106 · Youth Development+3 moreIt Takes A Village to Help Our Children Inc: $195,000 · Crime & LegalCAL RIPKEN SR FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · Education
Other$4,831,805Youth Development$4,276,331Crime & Legal$195,000Education$100,000

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 budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF HARFORD AND CECIL COUNTIES INC: $1,749,497 over 7y, 15% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER WASHINGTON AND AFFILIATE: $1,417,548 over 6y, 2.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF ANNAPOLIS & ANNE ARUNDEL: $1,378,917 over 7y, 24% of budgetBoys and Girls Club of Westminster: $983,645 over 7y, 24% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY: $947,488 over 7y, 14% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTHERN MARYLAND: $711,000 over 3y, 54% of budgetTHE SALVATION ARMY SERVICES INC: $681,115 over 4y, 20% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF FREDERICK CO: $677,432 over 7y, 29% of budgetDMV PAL INC: $208,388 over 4y, 28% of budgetIt Takes A Village to Help Our Children Inc: $195,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE TENNESSEE VALL: $120,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SILICON VALLEY: $118,106 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetPRINCE GEORGES COUNTY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC: $115,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetCAL RIPKEN SR FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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 AmericaGA21.6× affinity8 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Cal Ripken Sr Foundation Inc · Inspire Brands Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving 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 The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 46%
  • It Takes a Village to Help Our Children Inc: 46% of income from government
  • Cal Ripken Sr Foundation Inc: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
8report 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.

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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Boys and Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Baltimore’s filings →

More from the funding graph