· Public charity
The Brent Shapiro Foundation for Drug Awareness
To promote education and awareness for the disease of chemical dependence and drug awareness.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 62% of THE BRENT SHAPIRO FOUNDATION FOR DRUG AWARENESS’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $612,168 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $918,017 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $305,849 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LONG BEACH | $104,335 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF MALIBU | $102,652 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER OXNARD | $102,552 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY | $101,556 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF KIPS BAY | $101,073 |
| VARIETY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB | $100,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 89% of your 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.
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.
8 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- VBVARIETY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB8× · 2017–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +112%
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER OXNARD & PORT HUENEME3× · 2022–2024 · $460k · revenue +9%
- BGBoys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley4× · 2021–2024 · $407k · revenue +11%
Funded once
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELESone grant, 2023 · $18k · revenue -72%
- LALOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUBgraduatedone grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue +68%
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.
Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.
Boys and girls clubs provide a safe place for youth to develop character, leadership, education, career guidance, health, art, sports and fitness while becoming responsible and caring citizens.
To inspire and enable youth ages 6 to 18 to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens. the boys and girls clubs of greater st. louis provides recreational, athletic and educational facilities for youth in…
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.
The club provides a safe environment for children in the santa barbara area to develop self-esteem, values and skills.
The Antelope Valley Boys and Girls Club mission is to enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
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.
To accomplish our mission and purpose, we provide programs,activities, and services that are tailored to the special needs of today's youth and supplementary to the endeavors of our families, our schools, and other community-based…
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.
To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
The alliance was established to support the 23 clubs in the los angeles county by securing resources and marketing the boys and girls clubs to support the efforts of each individual club to increase their impact and outreach.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Los Angeles and the most unlike its peers is Learning Lab Ventures Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 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.
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 VARIETY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER OXNARD & PORT HUENEME ↗
- Who funds MALIBU FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES ↗
- Who funds Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley ↗
- Who funds Kips Bay Boys & Girls Club ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF VENICE ↗
- Who funds LEARNING LAB VENTURES INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
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: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · California Community Foundation · The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Los Angeles Lakers Youth Foundation · Gary E Milgard Family Foundation-Lori · La84 Foundation · The Green Foundation · United Way Inc · The Rose Hills Foundation · Elbridge Stuart Foundation Dba Stuart Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation
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 Brent Shapiro Foundation for Drug Awareness 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 or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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.