Skip to content

· Private foundation

A M Scott Will Paragraph VI Co BB&T

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$16k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$4k
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 2025.

Human Services$36kPhilanthropy$27kFood & Nutrition$27kEducation$24kHealth$24kYouth Development$500
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,058
Median grant
1
States reached
$411k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YWCA OF CHARLESTON$4,058
MANNA MEAL$4,058
UNITED WAY OF CENTRAL WV$4,058
UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON FOUNDATION$4,058
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 (FY17–25, $17k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%YWCA OF CHARLESTON: $5k → 18%YWCA OF CHARLESTON: $4k → 18%BOB BURDETTE CENTER: $2k → 18%BOB BURDETTE CENTER: $2k → 18%BOB BURDETTE CENTER: $2k → 18%UNION MISSION: $2k → 18%UNION MISSION: $500 → 18%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$138k · 11 repeat orgs$500 to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$138k
$500

Still filing today

64%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthOther
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

  • MM
    MANNA MEAL INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $27k · revenue +92%
  • YO
    YWCA OF CHARLESTON WEST VIRGINIA INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $9k · revenue +14%
  • BB
    BOB BURDETTE CENTER INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $6k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • BB
    BIG BROTHER BIG SISTERS OF S CENTRAL WV
    one grant, 2017 · $500
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 12 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNITED WAY OF CENTRAL WV: $27,291 · OtherUNITED WAY OF CENTRAL WVMANNA MEAL INC: $26,613 · OtherMANNA MEAL INCUNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON FOUNDATION: $24,291 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON FOUNDATIONYWCA: $19,233 · OtherYWCAWEST VIRGINIA HEALTH RIGHT INC: $7,500 · OtherWEST VIRGINIA HEALTH RIGHT INCTHOMAS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $7,500 · OtherTHOMAS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION+1 more: $500 · OtherYWCA OF CHARLESTON WEST VIRGINIA INC: $8,729 · Human ServicesYWCA OF CHARL…BOB BURDETTE CENTER INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesBOB BURDETTE …UNION MISSION MINISTRIES INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesUNION MISSION…CHILDHOOD LANGUAGE DISORDERS CENTER INC: $4,500 · HealthCAMC FOUNDATION INC: $4,000 · Health
Other$112,928Human Services$16,729Health$8,500

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 budgetMANNA MEAL INC: $26,613 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetYWCA OF CHARLESTON WEST VIRGINIA INC: $8,729 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA HEALTH RIGHT INC: $7,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetBOB BURDETTE CENTER INC: $6,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetCHILDHOOD LANGUAGE DISORDERS CENTER INC: $4,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCAMC FOUNDATION INC: $4,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUNION MISSION MINISTRIES INC: $2,000 over 2y, 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.

  • Who funds MANNA MEAL INC ↗
  • Who funds YWCA OF CHARLESTON WEST VIRGINIA INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST VIRGINIA HEALTH RIGHT INC ↗
  • Who funds BOB BURDETTE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CHILDHOOD LANGUAGE DISORDERS CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds CAMC FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds UNION MISSION MINISTRIES INC ↗

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.

Encova Foundation of West VirginiaWV20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Encova Foundation of West Virginia · The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation · Tgkvf Inc · Truist West Virginia Foundation Inc · Pallottine Foundation of Huntington West Virginia · Bernard H and Blanche E Jacobson Foundation · The Martha Gaines & Russell Wehrle Memorial Foundation · Herscher Foundation Inc · Charles & Mary Fayne Glotfelty Foundation Inc · The Daywood Foundationinc · Bernard McDonough Foundation Inc · Enterprise Holdings 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 A M Scott Will Paragraph VI Co BB&T funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from A M Scott Will Paragraph VI Co BB&T. 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 12 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on A M Scott Will Paragraph VI Co BB&T’s filings →

    More from the funding graph