· Public charity
The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs
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.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 60% of THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS’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.
By grant size · FY2022
- Under $10k19 grants · $146k
- $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER | $1,007,781 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK | $8,310 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF PASADENA | $7,788 |
| WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE LA HARBOR | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF MALIBU | $7,788 |
| ANTELOPE VALLEY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE WEST VALLEY | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOOTHILLS | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD | $7,788 |
| BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF LONG BEACH | $7,788 |
| LOS ANGELES BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB | $7,787 |
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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% 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.
23 repeat relationships — 20 still active in FY2022, 3 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2022, 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
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER INC6× · 2017–2022 · $1.1M · revenue +623%
- BGBoys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley6× · 2017–2022 · $111k · revenue +86%
- WVWest Valley Boys & Girls Club Inc6× · 2017–2022 · $110k · revenue +123%
Funded once
- EVEAST VALLEY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB2× · 2017–2018 · $20k
- BABOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF POMONA VALLEY2× · 2017–2018 · $7k
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 club provides a safe environment for children in the santa barbara area to develop self-esteem, values and skills.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.
Enable young people, especially those from disadvantaged circumstances to realize their full potential as productive, responsible & caring citizens.
To provide opportunities for youth to learn and succeed.
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.
To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as responsible and caring citizens.
To provide a year round, positive, safe, healthy, fun and educational environment that prepares our youth to become responsible individuals caring individuals.
To operate a boys and girls club facility and after-school and summer camp programs for all area children regardless of ability to pay in the Five Cities area of San Luis Obispo County.
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 inspire, enable and support all youth to realize their full potential as successful, responsible, and impactful members of the community.
To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Club of Hollywood Inc and the most unlike its peers is Malibu Foundation for Youth and Families. 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 58 years old; the field is 12. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 5% lost their exemption, against 16% 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.
21 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. 21 of the 25 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 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF WHITTIER INC ↗
- Who funds Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley ↗
- Who funds West Valley Boys & Girls Club Inc ↗
- Who funds The Antelope Valley Boys and Girls Club ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LONG BEACH ↗
- Who funds VARIETY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR ↗
- Who funds THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF BURBANK AND GREATER EAST VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF VENICE ↗
- Who funds MALIBU FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOOTHILLS ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PASADENA ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF METRO LOS ANGELES ↗
- Who funds LOS ANGELES BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
- Who funds South Bay Youth Clubs Inc ↗
- Who funds SALESIAN BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB ↗
- Who funds EAST LOS ANGELES BOYS AND 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 Rose Hills Foundation · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Rite Aid Healthy Futures · Elbridge Stuart Foundation Dba Stuart Foundation · Los Angeles Lakers Youth Foundation · The Green Foundation · United Way Inc · The Ahmanson Foundation · The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · La84 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 Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs 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.