Skip to content

· Private foundation

Anthony P Baratta Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$33k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$59kCrime & Legal$32kReligion$23kHealth$20kHuman Services$19kYouth Development$5kInternational$3kOther$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $8k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $25k
$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$271k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LASALLE UNIVERSITY$25,000
Individual grant recipient$2,500
SUPPORT CENTER FOR CHILD ADVOCATES$1,000
PA BRAIN INJURY ASSN$1,000
PHILADELPHIA VIP$1,000
LAUREL HOUSE$1,000
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL$1,000
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 (FY18–25, $19k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%LAUREL HOUSE: $5k → 7%LAUREL HOUSE: $3k → 7%LAUREL HOUSE: $3k → 7%LAUREL HOUSE: $3k → 7%LAUREL HOUSE: $3k → 7%LAUREL HOUSE: $2k → 7%LAUREL HOUSE: $1k → 7%LAUREL HOUSE: $1k → 7%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$151k · 10 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
5

Total granted

$151k
$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%
+102%

Still filing today

60%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Crime & LegalEducationHuman ServicesHealthInternationalOther
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

  • PHILADELPHIA VIP INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $21k · revenue +77%
  • LH
    LAUREL HOUSE
    8× · 2018–2025 · $19k · revenue +45%
  • CC
    COLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE
    4× · 2018–2023 · $7k · revenue +97%

Funded once

  • BB
    BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF BUCKS COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2018 · $4k · revenue -22%
  • WG
    WHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $3k · revenue +102%
  • TC
    THE CENTER FOR CHILD ADVOCATES
    one grant, 2021 · $1k
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
Bucks County Bar Association

The association is a professional organization whose purpose is to improve the quality of the legal profession.

—
2
Women Against Abuse Legal Center

The women against abuse legal center provides free attorney representation, advocacy and telephone counseling to victims of domestic violence seeking legal protections in philadelphia.

Crime & Legal
3
Philadelphia Legal Assistance Center Inc C/O the Organization

Enforcing and protecting the rights of individuals and families by providing accessible, creative, and high quality legal assistance and working collaboratively for systemic change.

Crime & Legal
4
Louisiana State Bar Association

The mission of the louisiana state bar association is to assist its members in the practice of law, assure access to and aid in the administration of justice, assist the supreme court in the regulation of the practice of law, uphold the…

—
5
Philadelphia Bar Foundation

Promoting equal access to justice for all members of the community by strengthening the legal services system through unrestricted operating grants and technical assistance to legal aid non profits.

Crime & Legal
6
Colorado Legal Services

To provide meaningful access to high quality, civil legal services in the pursuit of justice for as many low income persons and members of vulnerable populations throughout colorado as possible.

Crime & Legal
7
Legal Aid of Southeastern Pennsylvania Inc

The mission of legal aid of southeastern pennsylvania is to provide quality legal representation to low-income and vulnerable people in bucks, chester, delaware and montgomery counties, to empower them to solve problems without legal…

Crime & Legal
8
Behavior Analyst Certification Board Inc

We protect consumers of behavior analysis services by systematically establishing, promoting, and disseminating professional standards.

Employment
9
Los Angeles County Bar Association (Lacba)

Meeting the professional needs of los angeles lawyers, and improving the administration of justice.

—
10
Delaware Valley University

See schedule o.we are inspired by the ideals of our founder who, in 1896, emphasized respect for all people and ideas, who honored knowledge with practice, progress and the common good. our historical commitment to experiential learning…

—
11
Colorado Bar Association

To advance the science of jurisprudence, secure the more efficient administration of justice, encourage the adoption of proper legislation, advocate thorough and continuing legal education, uphold the honor and integrity of the bar,…

—
12
Association of Legal Administrators

Ala is the catalyst for growth by providing: diverse educational experiences, engaged peer communities, strategic solutions, dynamic resources, and trusted networks.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Support Center for Child Advocates; the most unlike its peers is Wheels Global 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

8 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. 8 of the 16 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOLY REDEEMER FOUNDATION: $22,500 · OtherHOLY REDEEMER FOUNDATIONUNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL: $15,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOLPA BRAIN INJURY ASSN: $13,500 · OtherPA BRAIN INJURY ASSNBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF BUCKS COUNTY INC: $3,600 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF BUCKS COUNTY INCANCILLAE ASSUMPTA ACADEMY: $3,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · Other+3 more: $2,250 · OtherLA SALLE UNIVERSITY: $40,500 · EducationLA SALLE UNIVERSITYPHILADELPHIA VIP INC: $21,000 · Crime & LegalPHILADELPHIA VIP INCSupport Center for Child Advocates: $6,500 · Crime & LegalSupport Center for Ch…BUCKS COUNTY BAR FOUNDATION: $3,000 · Crime & LegalBUCKS COUNTY BAR FOUN…LAUREL HOUSE: $19,000 · Human ServicesLAUREL HOUSECOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE: $6,500 · HealthWHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION: $2,500 · International
Other$62,850Education$40,500Crime & Legal$30,500Human Services$19,000Health$6,500International$2,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLA SALLE UNIVERSITY: $40,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPHILADELPHIA VIP INC: $21,000 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetLAUREL HOUSE: $19,000 over 8y, 0.2% of budgetCOLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE: $6,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSupport Center for Child Advocates: $6,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF BUCKS COUNTY INC: $3,600 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBUCKS COUNTY BAR FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetWHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.8% 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 LA SALLE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds PHILADELPHIA VIP INC ↗
  • Who funds LAUREL HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds COLORECTAL CANCER ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds Support Center for Child Advocates ↗
  • Who funds BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF BUCKS COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds BUCKS COUNTY BAR FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WHEELS GLOBAL FOUNDATION ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA3.2× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amazonsmile 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 Anthony P Baratta Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Anthony P Baratta Foundation. 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%4%8%11%15%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 · 0–15%
    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 16 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 Anthony P Baratta’s filings →

    More from the funding graph