Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Washington State Boys & Girls Clubs Asso

To promote exclusively the social welfare of boys and girls in washington; to provide guidance and to promote the health, social, educational, vocational, character, and cultural development of boys and girls in washington without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin; and to receive, invest, and disburse funds, and to hold…

$8.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
15
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$1.5M
Largest
01What you fund
0192% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY20172024.

Youth Development$21MRecreation & Sports$3.8MHealth$8kOther$2.1M
02FY2024 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 15 grants below total $8,210,638 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $8,894,159 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $683,521 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k4 grants · $625k
  • $250k+11 grants · $7.6M
$450,879
Median grant
2
States reached
$7.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY$1,458,660
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTONFRANKLIN COUNTIES$1,054,609
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND$1,025,470
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST WA$718,132
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SKAGIT COUNTY$608,676
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY$601,049
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTY$580,465
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA$450,879
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SPOKANE COUNTY$401,205
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN$358,392
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BELLEVUE$328,045
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CHEHALISLEWIS COUNTY$189,943
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE LEWIS CLARK VALLEY$182,664
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF WHATCOM COUNTY$177,649
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF YAKAMA NATION$74,800
02The need
03

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE LEWIS CLARK VALLEY: $183k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of King County: $1.9M → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $1.5M → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON: $738k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTY: $580k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTONFRANKLIN COUNTIES: $1.1M → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SKAGIT COUNTY: $637k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CHEHALISLEWIS COUNTY: $190k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA: $457k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SPOKANE COUNTY: $401k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN: $358k → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY: $636k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $1.5M → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST WA: $718k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTY: $576k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND: $1.1M → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTONFRANKLIN: $981k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SKAGIT COUNTY: $609k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA: $451k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SPOKANE COUNTY: $316k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN: $316k → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY: $601k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $264k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Thurston: $412k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND: $1.0M → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of BentonFranklin: $245k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Skagit County: $252k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Olympic Peninsula: $236k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Spokane County: $171k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Columbia Basin: $143k → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY: $236k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Snohomish: $248k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTY: $167k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of South Puget Sound: $823k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTONFRANKLIN: $229k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SKAGIT COUNTY: $131k → 11%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Whatcom County: $383k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SPOKANE COUNTY: $142k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Snohomish County: $134k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of South Puget Sound: $538k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF WHATCOM COUNTY: $178k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND: $216k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF WHATCOM COUNTY: $160k → 12%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND: $130k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS of Bellevue: $722k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BELLEVUE: $328k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BELLEVUE: $290k → 9%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BELLEVUE: $223k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 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.

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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$27M · 16 repeat orgs$120k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +93% since the first grant, against -38% for the ones you funded once.

16 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
4

Total granted

$27M
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+93%
-38%

Still filing today

88%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Youth DevelopmentRecreation & SportsHealthOther

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

  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $3.9M · revenue +93%
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY
    8× · 2017–2024 · $3.8M · revenue +38%
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND
    5× · 2020–2024 · $3.7M · revenue +22%

Funded once

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA
    one grant, 2019 · $15k
  • DN
    DFMWR NAF FINANCIAL SERVICES OFFICE JB LEWIS MCCHORD
    one grant, 2018 · $12k
  • BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -38%

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
Boys Girls Club
2
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
3
Boys & Girls Club of Washington County

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

Youth Development
4
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.

5
Boys & Girls Club of Washington County

Youth educational purposes

6
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
7
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
8
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
9
Boys & Girls Club of Washington County Inc

Provide behavioral guidance and promote health, social, educational and vocational development of boys and girls six to eighteen years of age.

Youth Development
10
The Boys & Girls Club of Washington County Inc

To enable all young people to realize their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.to achieve our mission we offer character building experiences for the youth of washington county through the form of social,…

Youth Development
11
Boys and Girls Clubs of the Capital Area

To provide a safe, fun place where youth are inspired to make healthy, responsible choices.

Youth Development
12
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

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Boys & Girls Clubs of the Olympic Peninsula and the most unlike its peers is The Hope Heart Institute. 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

19 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 21 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/19
Grantees still filing
14/19
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY — $3,852,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTYBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND — $3,685,016 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUNDBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES — $2,683,619 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIESBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTY — $1,925,544 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTYBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SKAGIT COUNTY — $1,842,273 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SKAGIT COUNTYBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON — $1,779,799 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTONTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA — $1,318,789 · Youth DevelopmentTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULABoys & Girls Club of Spokane County — $1,194,444 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Club of Spokane CountyBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN — $985,592 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Clubs of Whatcom County — $958,383 · Youth Development+4 more — $1,265,153 · Youth Development+4 moreBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY — $3,781,586 · Recreation & SportsBOYS AND GIRLS …BELLEVUE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS INC — $1,758,857 · OtherBoys and Girls Clubs of South Puget Sound — $289,043 · Other+3 more — $73,575 · OtherTHE HOPE HEART INSTITUTE — $8,000 · Health
Youth Development$21,490,612Recreation & Sports$3,781,586Other$2,121,475Health$8,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY — $3,852,000 over 8y, 6.2% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY — $3,781,586 over 8y, 9.6% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND — $3,685,016 over 5y, 13% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES — $2,683,619 over 8y, 8.7% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTY — $1,925,544 over 8y, 18% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SKAGIT COUNTY — $1,842,273 over 8y, 12% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON — $1,779,799 over 8y, 15% of budgetBELLEVUE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS INC — $1,758,857 over 8y, 8.7% of budgetTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA — $1,318,789 over 8y, 17% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of Spokane County — $1,194,444 over 8y, 11% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN — $985,592 over 8y, 20% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Whatcom County — $958,383 over 8y, 5.9% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE LEWIS CLARK VALLEY INC — $601,081 over 8y, 5.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEWIS COUNTY — $579,225 over 8y, 19% of budgetBoys and Girls Clubs of South Puget Sound — $289,043 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE YAKAMA NATION — $74,800 over 1y, 28% of budgetCOASTAL ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH — $46,765 over 3y, 18% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA — $10,047 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
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 CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF KING COUNTY
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THURSTON COUNTY
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SKAGIT COUNTY
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON
  • Who funds BELLEVUE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS INC
  • Who funds THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Club of Spokane County
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Clubs of Whatcom County
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE LEWIS CLARK VALLEY INC
  • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEWIS COUNTY
  • Who funds Boys and Girls Clubs of South Puget Sound
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE YAKAMA NATION
  • Who funds COASTAL ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA
  • Who funds THE HOPE HEART INSTITUTE

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.

Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaGA41.6× affinity18 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · School's Out Washington · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · The Albertsons Companies Foundation · Umpqua Bank Charitable Foundation · Rite Aid Healthy Futures · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · Medina Foundation · The Kroger Co Zero Hunger Zero Waste Foundation · The Sunderland Foundation · Bnsf Railway 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 Washington State Boys & Girls Clubs Asso 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.

2024
2021222324
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%your 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
    14report 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, FY2024

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 21 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph