Loading…
· Public charity
THE BUDDY FUND
To serve local at-risk youth in partnership with dedicated schools, recreation, and youth organizations by providing new sports and recreation equipment to create opportunities for development of their physical and mental health, confidence and character, teamwork and respect for others, and academic expectations and personal…
$230k
Granted FY2023
1
Grants
1
Communities
$6k
Largest
01What you fund
0187% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2023.
Recreation & Sports$19kYouth Development$4kHuman Services$3kHealth$1kOther$4k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2018
education
2019
—
2020
—
2022
—
2023
—
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2023 · 1 grant
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$6,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$696k
Total assets
Largest grants
- LOU FUSZ ATHLETICS$6,000
02The need
04
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.
show:
Your human-services grants (FY20–20, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
80%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$25k · 4 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +128% since the first grant, against +31% for the ones you funded once.
4 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
4
5
Total granted
$25k
$6k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+128%
+31%
Still filing today
50%
100%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Recreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentHealthHuman ServicesOther
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
- LFLOU FUSZ ATHLETICS CLUB3× · 2022–2024 · $12k · revenue +128%
- IBISAAC BRUCE FOUNDATION2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +243%
- BHBOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE2× · 2019–2020 · $4k · revenue -26%
Funded once
- ECEVERY CHILD'S HOPEgraduated3× · 2018–2020 · $3k · revenue +31%
- MMARYGROVE2× · 2019–2020 · $1k · revenue -11%
- TFTHE FOX ICE HOCKEY CLUBgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $1k · revenue +58%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
St Louis Youth Soccer Association
To provide soccer leagues to promote youth soccer in the st louis area
—
2
Boys & Girls Club of the Missouri
To enable all young people, especially those who need them most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
Youth Development
3
Save Our Youth - St Louis
Youth Development
4
The Boys and Girls Clubs
Boys & girls clubs of metropolitan baltimore (bgcmb) provides youth development programs and services for youth ages 6 to 18 during the critical out-of-school time hours. our nine club locations are community-based and led by paid,…
Youth Development
5
Boys Club of Greater Kansas City
The organization promotes the personal development of boys and girls ages 5-18, with special concern for the disadvantaged by providing services that build self-esteem, values and skills during critical periods of growth.
Youth Development
6
St Louis Sports Commission Inc
Foster economic growth and improved quality of life in the st. louis area by producing events, enhancing its national and international image as a premier sports region, and increasing community awareness of the value of sports.
—
7
Boys and Girls Club of the Ozarks
Operating a full-time, youth agency dedicated to fostering a sense of belonging, positive self-esteem, and accomplishment in all kids.
Youth Development
8
Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Illinois
To provide health, social, educational, vocational and character development to boys and girls in springfield, illinois
Youth Development
9
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sioux Empire
To nurture, educate and enrich children and youth for life-long success.
Human Services
10
Girls Incorporated of St Louis
Inspiring all girls to be strong, smart, and bold
Youth Development
11
Girls On the Run of St Louis
Girls on the run of st louis (gotr-stl) inspires girls to be joyful, healthy and confident using a fun experienced base curriculum which integrates running. gotr-stl is a health and wellness program for girls in grades 3-8.
Youth Development
12
Junior Golf Foundation of Greater St Louis
To impact the lives of young poeple in the greater st. louis area by providing educational programs that build character, instill life-enhancing values and promote healthy choices through the game of golf.
Recreation & Sports
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Club of St Charles and the most unlike its peers is Great Circle. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 35 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 14% of your grantees by number, and just 11% of your money.
Closures · last 5 years
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
orgs you fund
2%1/62
the rest of the field
12%
1,452/11,869
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.
05the grantee network
37 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
33/37
Grantees still filing
23/37
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Recreation & Sports$18,500Youth Development$4,396Other$3,950Human Services$3,000Health$1,000
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.
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.
St Louis Community Foundation IncMO54× affinity27 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: St Louis Community Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater St Louis Inc · St Louis Community Foundation · Employees of Community Fund · Youthbridge Community Foundation · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Norman J Stupp Foundation · Pott Foundation · World Wide Technology Foundation · Jordan Mary R & Ettie a Charitable · Pecha Family Foundation · Centene 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 organisation THE BUDDY FUND 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.
2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: ISAAC BRUCE FOUNDATION.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~2 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 9 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
9 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 3.4× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 208066845 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on ISAAC BRUCE FOUNDATION, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 3% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to The Buddy Fund?
Find your warmest path to The Buddy Fund through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines