Skip to content

· 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 FY2023
1
States reached
$6k
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, FY2017 to 2023.

Recreation & Sports$26kYouth Development$5k
02FY2023 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $6,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $229,872 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $223,872 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$6,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$696k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LOU FUSZ ATHLETICS$6,000
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 (FY20–20, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%EVERY CHILD'S HOPE: $3k → 11%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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$25k · 4 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +27% since the first grant, against +23% for those 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

+27%
+23%

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.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’22’23
Recreation & SportsYouth DevelopmentHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • LF
    LOU FUSZ SOCCER CLUB
    3× · 2022–2024 · $12k · revenue +27%
  • IB
    Isaac Bruce Foundation
    2× · 2017–2018 · $5k · revenue +243%
  • BH
    BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE
    2× · 2019–2020 · $4k · revenue -13%

Funded once

  • EC
    Evangelical Children's Homegraduated
    3× · 2018–2020 · $3k · revenue +27%
  • FI
    FOX ICE HOCKEY CLUB
    one grant, 2020 · $1k · revenue +23%
  • CC
    CHILD CENTER-MARYGROVE
    2× · 2019–2020 · $1k · revenue -36%
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 of the Missouri River Area

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

Youth Development
2
St Louis Youth Soccer Association

To provide soccer leagues to promote youth soccer in the st louis area

—
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 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
5
St Martin's Child Center

Providing day care services to infants and children of low income families in northern st. louis county, missouri

—
6
St Louis Prospects Hockey Club

Provide youth hockey players valuable life skills with training, competition and team building experiences. while promoting self esteem, physical healthy habits

Recreation & Sports
7
Christian Activity Center

To serve children, youth and families in east st. louis, illinois, with programs that prepare them for successful futures academically, emotionally, physically, and spiritually.

Human Services
8
St Louis Internship Program

To bring together community and private sector resources to prepare low income high school students attending public schools in the city of st. louis for the future through economic opportunities and education.

—
9
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
10
Boys and Girls Club of the Ozarks

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens. club membership is open to all kids ages 6-18.

Youth Development
11
Urban Golf of Greater St Louis

Preparing youth to be successful beyond high shcool, while intoducing them to the vast gold community.

—
12
Children First

Children First brings the community together to create better outcomes so that every young person in St. Louis Park can thrive. We convene cross-sector initiatives working to change the odds for our children and families.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Club of St Charles County; the most unlike its peers is Isaac Bruce Foundation. 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

37 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
33/37
Grantees still filing
21/37
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LOU FUSZ SOCCER CLUB: $12,000 · Recreation & SportsLOU FUSZ SOCCER CLUBIsaac Bruce Foundation: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsIsaac Bruce FoundationFOX ICE HOCKEY CLUB: $1,000 · Recreation & SportsFOX ICE HOCKEY CLUB+1 more: $500 · Recreation & SportsBOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE: $4,396 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS HOPE GIRLS …EAST ST LOUIS COMMUNITY TENNIS ASSOCIATION: $3,250 · OtherEAST ST LOUIS …HOPE IGNITES ST LOUIS: $700 · OtherHOPE IGNITES S…Evangelical Children's Home: $3,000 · Human ServicesEvangelical…CHILD CENTER-MARYGROVE: $1,000 · Health
Recreation & Sports$18,500Youth Development$4,396Other$3,950Human Services$3,000Health$1,000

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 budgetLOU FUSZ SOCCER CLUB: $12,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetIsaac Bruce Foundation: $5,000 over 2y, 3.3% of budgetBOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE: $4,396 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEvangelical Children's Home: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCHILD CENTER-MARYGROVE: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLIFT FOR LIFE ACADEMY INC: $500 over 4y, 0.0% 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.

St Louis Community Foundation IncMO48.2× affinity24 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 · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Employees Community Fund of the Boeing Company · Youthbridge Community Foundation · World Wide Technology Foundation · Norman J Stupp Foundation · Pott Foundation · St Louis Community Foundation · Pecha Family Foundation · Berges Family Foundation · Jordan Mary R & Ettie a Charitable

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 Buddy Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Buddy Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 9 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $278k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Buddy’s filings →

    More from the funding graph