· Private foundation
Charles F Peters Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k42 grants · $179k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MOUNT CARMEL BAPTIST CHURCH | $10,000 |
| NEW BEGINNINGS SERVICES | $5,000 |
| SAMPSON'S MILLS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH | $5,000 |
| MARY MOTHER OF GOD PARISH | $5,000 |
| SAINTS JOACHIM AND ANNE PARISH | $5,000 |
| CANCER BRIDGES | $5,000 |
| WILMERDING COMMUNITY CENTER INC | $5,000 |
| FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH | $5,000 |
| EAST SUBURBAN SEVENTH-DAY | $5,000 |
| SAVE SPORTS ARTS & VIDEO | $5,000 |
| MCKEESPORT K9 UNIT | $5,000 |
| JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF | $5,000 |
| MCKEESPORT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH | $5,000 |
| MCKEESPORT REGIONAL HISTORY & HERITAGE | $5,000 |
| BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH | $5,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY20–25, $51k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +48% since the first grant, against -1% for the ones you funded once.
59 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2025, 32 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $67k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- WOWHITE OAK ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION5× · 2021–2025 · $26k · revenue +48%
- MMMckeesport Meals on Wheels Inc5× · 2020–2025 · $26k · revenue +101%
- GPGREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK5× · 2020–2024 · $25k · revenue +13%
Funded once
- WCWAYMAN CHAPEL AME CHURCHone grant, 2022 · $5k
- BPBEULAH PARK UNITED METHODIST CHURCHone grant, 2021 · $5k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2020 · $5k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
Operation of three senior citizens centers with approximately 450 seniors citizens thru the Westmoreland County Area Agency on Aging.
To provide policy guidance, technical assistance, and program oversight for the city of pittsburgh and allegheny county, and to assist in the economic development of southwestern pa region.
The mission of wayne cares is to provide food and other material relief to persons in need, primarily in radnor township.
The mission is to build a just and stable housing ecosystem for allegheny county tenants by ensuring residents can easily access high quality eviction prevention and supportive services, rental assistance programs and resource navigation…
Provides nourishing, well-balanced meals to homebound, elderly, and/or disabled persons throughout lackawanna county to improve the health and quality of life of the local community.
Eecm changes the lives of people facing the impacts of poverty. opportunity, transformation, hope.
Providing drug and alcohol counseling and referral for treatment and education clients about hiv/aids and sexually transmitted diseases in allegheny county
Program Services to Aging Population in Clearfield County
The pittsburgh metropolitan area hispanic chamber of commerce is the principal regional advocate for the hispanic business community's civic and economic interests. it is our mission to develop, promote, and advocate on behalf of hispanic…
The Garden Court Community Association (GCCA) is an organization of individuals and families living and working in the Garden Court neighborhood in West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Since the mid 1950's, GCCA has worked to foster, promote,…
Community development resources
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Victims and the most unlike its peers is Anna Middleton Waite Learning Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 26 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 16% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
25 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 25 of the 106 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds WHITE OAK ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Mckeesport Meals on Wheels Inc ↗
- Who funds GREATER PITTSBURGH COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds WILMERDING COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds Anna Middleton Waite Learning Center ↗
- Who funds THE INTERSECTION ↗
- Who funds LAROSA YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA INC ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR VICTIMS ↗
- Who funds MCKEESPORT LITTLE THEATER ↗
- Who funds BEVERLY'S PGH ↗
- Who funds LITERACY PITTSBURGH ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: E R Crawford Est Trust Fund a Xxx-Xx-Xxxx · The Pittsburgh Foundation · Jefferson Regional Foundation · McKeesport Hospital Foundation · The United Way of Southwestern Pennsylvania · Upmc Group · Snee-Reinhardt Charitable Foundation · The Grable Foundation · Eqt Foundation · American Eagle Outfitters Foundation · Hillman Family Foundations · Robert & Mary Weisbrod Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Charles F Peters Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Charles F Peters Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Charles F Peters Foundation 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.