Skip to content
Brian J Vosburgh Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Brian J Vosburgh Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$88k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$30k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

International$256kHousing & Shelter$128kEducation$119kHealth$33kHuman Services$19kEnvironment$11k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $78k
$2,500
Median grant
5
States reached
$833k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PARTNERS IN HEALTH$30,000
URBAN MINISTRIES OF DURHAM$27,964
BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL$10,000
BARRIER ISLAND FREE MEDICAL CLINIC$10,000
DUKE UNIVERSITY$2,500
INSTITUE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY IN HAITI$2,000
FONKOZE$2,000
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY$1,500
TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY$1,500
DURHAM LIBRARY FOUNDATION$500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 87% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%INSTITUE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY IN HAITI: $4k → 16%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $10k → 15%BARRIER ISLAND FREE MEDICAL CLINIC: $10k → 12%FONKOZE: $2k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $3k → 11%INSTITUE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY IN HAITI: $2k → 16%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $10k → 15%FONKOZE: $2k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $3k → 11%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $10k → 15%FONKOZE: $2k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $3k → 11%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $10k → 15%FONKOZE: $2k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $3k → 11%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $10k → 15%FONKOZE: $2k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $3k → 11%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $10k → 15%FONKOZE: $2k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $3k → 11%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $10k → 15%FONKOZE: $2k → 14%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $2k → 11%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL - BROTHER BERNARDINE SCHOLARSHIP TRUST: $5k → 15%DUKE UNIVERSITY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $30k → 16%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL - ANGELO PRASSA SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $5k → 15%NETWORK FOR GOOD - URBAN MINISTRIES OF DURHAM: $15k → 14%TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $30k → 16%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL - BROTHER BERNARDINE SCHOLARSHIP TRUST: $5k → 15%NETWORK FOR GOOD - URBAN MINISTRIES OF DURHAM: $4k → 14%TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $30k → 16%BISHOP KELLY SCHOOL - ANGELO PRASSA SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $5k → 15%TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $30k → 16%TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $30k → 16%TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $25k → 16%TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $25k → 16%TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY: $2k → 11%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $24k → 16%PARTNERS IN HEALTH: $20k → 16%TROSA: $2k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$555k · 14 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
3

Total granted

$555k
$573

Still filing today

43%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
HealthEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $244k · revenue +120%
  • Urban Ministries of Durham Inc
    6× · 2020–2025 · $128k · revenue +22%
  • DUKE UNIVERSITY
    8× · 2018–2025 · $19k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • A
    AIDSLIFECYCLE
    one grant, 2023 · $364
  • FV
    FOREST VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA
    one grant, 2024 · $105
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $104
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 18 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
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Urban Ministries of Durham Inc: $127,964 · OtherUrban Ministries of Durham IncBISHOP KELLY SCHOOL: $70,000 · OtherBISHOP KELLY SCHOOLNETWORK FOR GOOD - URBAN MINISTRIES OF DURHAM: $19,000 · OtherNETWORK FOR GOOD - URBAN MINISTRIES OF DURHAMFONKOZE: $14,800 · OtherINSTITUE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY IN HAITI: $11,500 · OtherBISHOP KELLY SCHOOL - ANGELO PRASSA SCHOLARSHIP FUND: $10,000 · OtherBISHOP KELLY SCHOOL - BROTHER BERNARDINE SCHOLARSHIP TRUST: $10,000 · Other+6 more: $15,588 · Other+6 morePARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $244,074 · HealthPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATIONBARRIER ISLANDS FREE MEDICAL CLINIC: $10,000 · HealthDUKE UNIVERSITY: $19,000 · EducationDURHAM LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $3,000 · EducationTRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $11,000 · Environment
Other$278,852Health$254,074Education$22,000Environment$11,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $244,074 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetUrban Ministries of Durham Inc: $127,964 over 6y, 0.6% of budgetDUKE UNIVERSITY: $19,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetTRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $11,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetBARRIER ISLANDS FREE MEDICAL CLINIC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTRIANGLE RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSERS INC: $6,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetDURHAM LIBRARY FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 7y, 0.1% 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 PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds Urban Ministries of Durham Inc ↗
  • Who funds DUKE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds BARRIER ISLANDS FREE MEDICAL CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds TRIANGLE RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSERS INC ↗
  • Who funds DURHAM LIBRARY 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Brian J Vosburgh Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Brian J Vosburgh Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 18 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 Brian J Vosburgh’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