Skip to content
Braunstein Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Braunstein Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$8k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$5k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$6kCivil Rights$2kAnimals$2kArts & Culture$950Food & Nutrition$900Youth Development$500Human Services$500Housing & Shelter$400Other$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$400
Median grant
4
States reached
$94k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TEMPLE BETH SHOLOM$5,000
JUNTOS$600
ILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS$500
HIAS PENNSYLVANIA$500
SHARE FOOD PROGRAM$400
PROJECT HOME$400
FAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY$300
CATSKILL ANIMAL SANCTUARY$200
SUSTAINABLE SOUTH JERSEY$150
Individual grant recipient$100
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 (FY22–25, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 22%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%PROJECT HOME: $400 → 22%JUNTOS: $600 → 22%JUNTOS: $300 → 22%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.

28%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4k · 6 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
7

Total granted

$4k
$2k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-13%
+101%

Still filing today

50%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 11% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k 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
AnimalsHuman ServicesCivil RightsFood & NutritionEnvironmentArts & CultureOther
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

  • JUNTOS
    2× · 2022–2025 · $900 · revenue -13%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    8× · 2018–2025 · $750
  • CA
    CATSKILL ANIMAL SANCTUARY INC
    4× · 2019–2025 · $700 · revenue -44%

Funded once

  • MT
    MAMA TEE (PLAYERS PHILANTHROPHY FUND)
    one grant, 2024 · $500
  • YOUTH EMPOWERMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT HANGOUTgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $500 · revenue +813%
  • RR
    RANCHO RELAXO INC
    one grant, 2023 · $300 · revenue -23%
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
Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society

Dedicated to saving philadelphias homeless and at-risk pets through rescue, adoption, and provision of veterinary care and other pet owner support services.

Animals
2
Philadelphia Health Partnership
Health
3
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
4
Familiar Hearts Animal Society

we are an animal rescue taking in homeless pets in northwestern philadelphia, providing them with medical care, food, shelter and new forever homes.

Animals
5
Women Against Abuse Inc

The mission of women against abuse is to provide quality, compassionate, and nonjudgmental services in a manner that fosters self-respect and independence in persons experiencing intimate partner violence and to lead the struggle to end…

Human Services
6
Sanctuary Farm Phila

Sanctuary Farm seeks to address the health inequities resulting from systemic racial oppression and economic injustice by converting abandoned and neglected areas in our community into spaces that promote safety, hospitality, nutrition and…

Food & Nutrition
7
Women's Law Project

Women's law project creates a more just and equitable society by advancing the rights and status of all women throughout their lives. to this end, we engage in high-impact litigation, advocacy, and education. the core values of women's law…

Civil Rights
8
Saved Me Inc

Saved nbsp;me nbsp;inc nbsp;is nbsp;focused nbsp;on nbsp;saving nbsp;dogs nbsp;and nbsp;cats nbsp;from nbsp;shelters nbsp;that nbsp;are nbsp;forced nbsp;to nbsp;euthanize nbsp;due nbsp;to nbsp;limited nbsp;amount nbsp;of nbsp;space

—
9
Homeless Advocacy Project

To provide free civil legal services and advocacy to reduce the frequency and duration of homelessness in philadelphia.

Crime & Legal
10
Animal House Project

Animal house project's mission is to offer comprehensive support to vulnerable animals. this includes rescuing, adopting, and facilitating access to veterinary care and food. through dedicated efforts, innovative solutions and strategic…

Animals
11
Police Athletic League of Philadelphia
Youth Development
12
Illinois Animal Welfare Networkers Association
Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Project Home; the most unlike its peers is Juntos. 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

12 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. 12 of the 20 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
6/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TEMPLE BETH SHOLOM: $5,000 · OtherTEMPLE BETH SHOLOMIndividual grant recipient: $750 · OtherIndividual grant recipientHIAS PENNSYLVANIA: $500 · OtherHIAS PENNSYLVANIAKOL TZEDEK SYNAGOGUE: $500 · OtherKOL TZEDEK SYNAGOGUEMAMA TEE (PLAYERS PHILANTHROPHY FUND): $500 · OtherMAMA TEE (PLAYERS PHILANTHROPHY FUND)ST LEONARDS MINISTRY: $350 · Other+4 more: $800 · Other+4 moreCATSKILL ANIMAL SANCTUARY INC: $700 · AnimalsCATSKILL ANIM…4 Paws 4U 4 Ever: $450 · Animals4 Paws 4U 4 E…RANCHO RELAXO INC: $300 · AnimalsRANCHO RELAXO…PAWS CHICAGO: $150 · AnimalsPAWS CHICAGOJUNTOS: $900 · Human ServicesJUNTOSPROJECT HOME: $400 · Human ServicesPROJECT HOM…ILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS: $500 · Civil RightsYOUTH EMPOWERMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT HANGOUT: $500 · Youth DevelopmentSHARE FOOD PROGRAM: $400 · Food & NutritionFAIRMOUNT PARK CONSERVANCY: $300 · Environment
Other$8,400Animals$1,600Human Services$1,300Civil Rights$500Youth Development$500Food & Nutrition$400Environment$300

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 budgetJUNTOS: $900 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCATSKILL ANIMAL SANCTUARY INC: $700 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetILLINOIS COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYOUTH EMPOWERMENT FOR ADVANCEMENT HANGOUT: $500 over 1y, 0.2% of budget4 Paws 4U 4 Ever: $450 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSHARE FOOD PROGRAM: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT HOME: $400 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRANCHO RELAXO INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetANTI-VIOLENCE PARTNERSHIP OF PHILADELPHIA: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMOVEMENT ALLIANCE PROJECT: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPAWS CHICAGO: $150 over 1y, 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.

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.

The William Penn Foun…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Vanguard Charitable E…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The William Penn FoundationPA13.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The William Penn Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Braunstein Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Braunstein Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 20 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 Braunstein’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