Skip to content
Babcock Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Babcock Charitable Trust

Its FY2021 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$3.8M
Granted FY2020
17
Grants FY2020
4
States reached
$500k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01FY2020 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $37k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $385k
  • $250k+10 grants · $3.4M
$250,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Western PA Conservancy$500,000
Allegheny County Parks Foundation$500,000
Audobon Society of Western PA$500,000
Grove City Colleg$350,000
Bank of America Charitable Fund$250,000
Pittsburgh Youth Leadership Inc$250,000
Community Foundation of Western MA$250,000
Canine Companions for Independence$250,000
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund$250,000
Friends of Boca Grande Community Center Inc$250,000
Family House Inc$130,000
Reading is FUNdamental$105,000
Gasparilla Island Conservation & Improvment Assoc$75,000
Second Harvest$75,000
The First Tee of Pittsburgh$16,667
02The need
02

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 (FY20–20, $585k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 57% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Friends of Boca Grande Community Center Inc: $250k → 11%Canine Companions for Independence: $250k → 5%Second Harvest: $75k → 11%Merakey Allegheny Valley School: $10k → 11%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 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
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

The western pennsylvania conservancy protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations. the conservancy…

Environment
2
Glen Foerd Conservation Corporation

Glen foerd stewards an eclectic riverfront estate for the enjoyment and educational benefit of the community. drawing from the estate's architecture, art, material culture, and history-as well as its gardens and waterways-glen foerd…

Environment
3
Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy

We improve quality of life by enhancing and stewarding pittsburgh's parks in partnership with the community.

Recreation & Sports
4
Zoological Society of Pittsburgh

The zoological society of pittsburgh is dedicated to being a leader in, and significant contributor to, the conservation of endangered and threatened species. the society provides an enjoyable family experience that fosters understanding,…

Animals
5
Point Park University

Provides innovative education in a dynamic urban setting. dedicated to academic excellence and community engagement,we prepare students of diverse backgrounds with the knowledge, skill,and experience to lead meaningful lives as informed…

—
6
Gettysburg College

Gettysburg college is a residential, undergraduate college of the liberal arts and sciences.

Education
7
Furman University

The primary mission of furman as a liberal arts institution is to provide a distinctive education in fine arts, humanities, social sciences, mathematics and the sciences, as well as selected professional disciplines.

Education
8
The Forest Park Conservancy

To protect and restore the ecological health of forest park and marquam nature park, maintain and enhance their extensive trails networks, promote equitable access, and inspire diverse community appreciation and stewardship of these iconic…

Environment
9
The Adirondack Council Inc

The adirondack council ensures the ecological integrity (clean water and air, wildlife habitat, etc.), wild character (solitude, scenic beauty, etc.), and vibrant communities of new york's six-million-acre adirondack park. the adirondack…

Environment
10
Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation

Visit philadelphia is our name and our mission. as the region's official tourism marketing agency, we build greater philadelphia's image, drive visitation and boost the economy.

Community Improvement
11
Bartlett Arboretum Association Inc

To cultivate and develop an expansive collection of trees, gardens, and plants for all to explore, enjoy and study; and to provide through education and stewardship, a greener, healthier, more beautiful environment.

Environment
12
The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society

Founded in 1827, the pennsylvania horticultural society (phs) uses horticulture to advance the health and well-being of the greater philadelphia region. (continued in sch o)phs's work focuses on four impact priorities: creating healthy…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Allegheny County Parks Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Merakey Allegheny Valley School. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

15 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. 15 of the 17 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
10/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ALLEGHENY COUNTY PARKS FOUNDATION: $500,000 · Community ImprovementALLEGHENY COUNTY PARKS…FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $250,000 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY INVESTMENTS C…Western PA Conservancy: $500,000 · OtherWestern PA ConservancyBank of America Charitable Fund: $250,000 · OtherBank of America Charitable…FAMILY HOUSE INC: $130,000 · OtherFAMILY HOUSE INC+1 more: $10,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF BOCA GRANDE COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $250,000 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF BOCA G…CANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC: $250,000 · Human ServicesCANINE COMPANIONS…Second Harvest: $75,000 · Human ServicesSecond Harvest+1 more: $10,000 · Human ServicesAUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PA: $500,000 · EnvironmentAUDUBON SOCIETY O…GASPARILLA ISL CONSER & IMPROVE ASSN: $75,000 · EnvironmentGASPARILLA ISL CO…GROVE CITY COLLEGE: $350,000 · EducationGROVE CITY COL…READING IS FUNDAMENTAL PITTSBURGH: $105,000 · EducationREADING IS FUN…CR JRS CHIP: $16,667 · EducationCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS: $250,000 · PhilanthropyPITTSBURGH YOUTH LEADERSHIP: $250,000 · Youth Development
Community Improvement$750,000Other$890,000Human Services$585,000Environment$575,000Education$471,667Philanthropy$250,000Youth Development$250,000

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 budgetALLEGHENY COUNTY PARKS FOUNDATION: $500,000 over 1y, 31% of budgetAUDUBON SOCIETY OF WESTERN PA: $500,000 over 1y, 37% of budgetGROVE CITY COLLEGE: $350,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $250,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF BOCA GRANDE COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $250,000 over 1y, 18% of budgetCOMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS: $250,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetPITTSBURGH YOUTH LEADERSHIP: $250,000 over 1y, 74% of budgetCANINE COMPANIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE INC: $250,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetFAMILY HOUSE INC: $130,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetREADING IS FUNDAMENTAL PITTSBURGH: $105,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetGASPARILLA ISL CONSER & IMPROVE ASSN: $75,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetSecond Harvest: $75,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetCR JRS CHIP: $16,667 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetMERAKEY ALLEGHENY VALLEY SCHOOL: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFORT LIGONIER ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% 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.

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.

Hillman Family Founda…The Pittsburgh Founda…Richard King Mellon F…The Courtney Babcock …The Simpson Family Fo…Clapp G H Decd Char a…The Burke Family Foun…The Burke FoundationMassey Charitable Tru…Allegheny FoundationThe Jack Buncher Foun…The Grable Foundation
Hillman Family FoundationsPA21.6× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hillman Family Foundations · The Pittsburgh Foundation · Richard King Mellon Foundation · The Courtney Babcock Borntraeger Foundation · The Simpson Family Foundation U/A Dtd 10/19/1999 · Clapp G H Decd Char and Ed Tr · The Burke Family Foundation · The Burke Foundation · Massey Charitable Trust · Allegheny Foundation · The Jack Buncher Foundation · The Grable 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 Babcock Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Babcock Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Babcock Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Babcock Charitable Trust through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 17 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2021) is on record but names no grant recipient in the published copy, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder’s grantee list reached the public record.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Babcock’s 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