Who are The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs's largest grantees?

By total granted over FY2017 to FY2022: Boys and Girls Club of Whittier Inc ($1.1M), Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley ($111k), West Valley Boys & Girls Club Inc ($110k).

Which funders back the same organizations as The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs?

Its strongest co-funders, measured against what their size predicts, include Boys & Girls Clubs of America, California Community Foundation, The Rose Hills Foundation.

The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs

The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs at a glance Also receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs

Q: How much does The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs give?

The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs reported 20 grants totaling $1,153,772 in its FY2022 IRS filing. It funded between 20 and 25 organizations a year over FY2017 to FY2022.

Q: What does The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs fund?

By grant dollars over FY2017 to FY2022, its largest causes are Youth Development (100%).

Q: Does The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs fund new organizations?

In FY2022, 0% of the organizations it funded were first-time grantees.

Q: Where is The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs based?

The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs is based in CA.

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.

$1.2M

Granted FY2022

Grants FY2022

States reached

$1.0M

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 2022.

Youth Development$3.1M

02FY2022 · 20 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

Under $10k19 grants · $146k
$250k+1 grant · $1.0M

$7,788

Median grant

States reached

Total assets

Largest grants
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
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF MALIBU	$7,788
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CARSON	$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 LONG BEACH	$7,788
ANTELOPE VALLEY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB	$7,788
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE WEST VALLEY	$7,788
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA MONICA	$7,788
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF HOLLYWOOD	$7,788
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOOTHILLS	$7,788
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF SANTA CLARITA VALLEY	$7,787

02The need

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 (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.

$3.1M · 23 repeat orgs$27k to everyone else

23 repeat relationships: 20 still active in FY2022, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$3.1M

$27k

Still filing today

83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 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

Youth DevelopmentEducationOther

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 CLUB OF WHITTIER INC
6× · 2017–2022 · $1.1M · revenue +623%
BG
Boys & Girls Club of West San Gabriel Valley
6× · 2017–2022 · $111k · revenue +86%
WV
West Valley Boys & Girls Club Inc
6× · 2017–2022 · $110k · revenue +204%

Funded once

EV
EAST VALLEY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
2× · 2017–2018 · $20k
BA
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF POMONA VALLEY
2× · 2017–2018 · $7k

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.

Boys Girls Club

—

Boys and Girls Club of Santa Barbarainc

The club provides a safe environment for children in the santa barbara area to develop self-esteem, values and skills.

Youth Development

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

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

Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma Valley

To provide opportunities for youth to learn and succeed.

Youth Development

The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc

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.

—

Boys & Girls Club of San Marcos

To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as responsible and caring citizens.

—

Boys & Girls Club of Simi Valley

To provide a year round, positive, safe, healthy, fun and educational environment that prepares our youth to become responsible individuals caring individuals.

—

Boys & Girls Club of South San Luis Obispo County

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.

Youth Development

Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest Virginia Inc

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.

Youth Development

Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County

To inspire, enable and support all youth to realize their full potential as successful, responsible, and impactful members of the community.

Unclassified

Boys & Girls Clubs of the San Gorgonio Pass

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

Education

How this is measured

The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Club of Hollywood Inc; 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.

04the grantee network

21 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. 21 of the 25 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

19/21

Grantees still filing

18/21

Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Other$1,870,393Youth Development$1,141,016Education$102,510

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

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 AmericaGA39.7× affinity17 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs. Bigger dots raise more.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

15report 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.

Play a game based on Los Angeles County Alliance for Boys and Girls Clubs’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions

grants reported with no recipient in the public record

The regranting layer

51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer

The DAF merry-go-round

$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds

The endowment market

who holds foundation money, and what just moved

The camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home