Skip to content
Charles T Campbell-Charitable Fdn at a glance

· Private foundation

Charles T Campbell-Charitable Fdn

Its FY2017 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$398k
Granted FY2017
19
Grants FY2017
4
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2017 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2017

  • Under $10k5 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $228k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $150k
$20,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$7.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Alice Lloyd College$50,000
JONES VALLEY URBAN FARM$50,000
RESTORATIION ACADEMY$50,000
GROWING KINGS$35,000
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF GREATER$30,000
HAND IN PAW$28,000
KID ONE TRANSPORT$25,000
THE WELLHOUSE$25,000
AMERICAN BASEBALL FOUNDATION$20,000
IMPACT ALABAMA$20,000
ALABAMA SYMPHONIC ASSOCIATION$15,000
THE PITTSBURGH PROJECT$10,000
GOODWILL OF SOUTHWESTERN PA$10,000
SOUTH PERFOM VOLLEYBALL ACADE$10,000
FOCUS ON RECOVERY$5,000
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 (FY17–17, $25k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%KID ONE TRANSPORT: $25k → 16%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
Birmingham Promise Inc

Birmingham Promise supports and prepares every Birmingham City School student in achieving economic security, mobility, and prosperity by providing connections to high-quality work experiences and last-dollar tuition scholarships

Education
2
Alabama Partnership for Children

To work in partnership with families and organizations to ensure that all alabama children (birth to five) get everything they need to develop to their fullest potential.

Education
3
Goodwill Industries of Kentucky Inc

Goodwill's mission is to help people with disabilities or other disadvantages achieve and maintain employment to gain a better quality of life.

Employment
4
Goodwill Industries of Central Alabama

Goodwill industries provides training and employment for handicapped persons.

Employment
5
University Charter School

Operation of a public charter school in Livingston, AL.

Education
6
Kipp Indianapolis Inc

KIPP Indy is a network of tuition-free, open-enrollment, college preparatory, public charter schools. KIPP Indy's mission is to create a network of schools that provides educationally underserved children with a rigorous education that…

Education
7
Preschool Partners

Provide an inclusive and diverse learning environment that prepares preschool children and their families for success through high quality curriculum, nurturing educators, parental engagement, and community collaboration

Education
8
Girls on the Run Georgia Inc

Girls on the Run Georgia empowers girls with vital social-emotional skills to help them succeed in school, at home, and within friendships. Our programs, Girls on the Run (3rd-5th grade) and Heart & Sole (6th-8th grade) are taught by…

Youth Development
9
UrbanPromise Charlotte

Provide Charlotte's low-income children and youth with the academic, spiritual, and social development necessary to become Christian leaders determined to restore their communities.

Youth Development
10
Goodwill Industries of the Valleys Inc

Goodwill's mission is to empower individuals, strengthen families, and inspire communities through job skills training and work placement opportunities with a multi-generational approach focused on removing barriers.

Employment
11
Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Michigan Inc

Goodwill provides exceptional opportunities for people facing employment barriers.

—
12
Voices for Alabama's Children

Our mission is to speak for the well-being of Alabama's children through research, public awareness, and advocacy.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Goodwill of Southwestern Pennsylvania; the most unlike its peers is Alice Lloyd College. 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

16 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. 16 of the 19 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE RESTORATION ACADEMY: $50,000 · EducationTHE RESTORATION ACADEMYALICE LLOYD COLLEGE: $50,000 · EducationALICE LLOYD COLLEGEImpact America: $20,000 · EducationImpact AmericaGROWING KINGS: $35,000 · OtherGROWING KINGSBig Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Birmingham Inc: $30,000 · OtherBig Brothers Big Sisters of Grea…ALABAMA SYMPHONIC ASSOCIATION: $15,000 · OtherALABAMA SYMPHONIC ASSOCIATIONSOUTH PERFOM VOLLEYBALL ACADE: $10,000 · OtherSOUTH PERFOM VOLLEYBALL ACADEFOCUS ON RECOVERY INC: $5,000 · OtherThe Pittsburgh Project: $10,000 · OtherThe Pittsburgh ProjectQuarterbacking Children's Health Foundation: $5,000 · OtherMCWANE SCIENCE CENTER: $5,000 · Other+1 more: $400 · OtherJONES VALLEY URBAN FARM: $50,000 · EmploymentJONES VALLEY URBA…GOODWILL OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $10,000 · EmploymentGOODWILL OF SOUTH…KID ONE TRANSPORT SYSTEM INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesGirls on the Run Birmingham: $5,000 · Human ServicesHAND IN PAW INC: $28,000 · AnimalsTHE WELLHOUSE INC: $25,000 · Housing & ShelterTHE SMARTPLAY: $20,000 · Recreation & Sports
Education$120,000Other$115,400Employment$60,000Human Services$30,000Animals$28,000Housing & Shelter$25,000Recreation & Sports$20,000

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 budgetTHE RESTORATION ACADEMY: $50,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetALICE LLOYD COLLEGE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetJONES VALLEY URBAN FARM: $50,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetHAND IN PAW INC: $28,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetKID ONE TRANSPORT SYSTEM INC: $25,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetTHE WELLHOUSE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE SMARTPLAY: $20,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetImpact America: $20,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetThe Pittsburgh Project: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetGOODWILL OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetQuarterbacking Children's Health Foundation: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGirls on the Run Birmingham: $5,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetFOCUS ON RECOVERY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetMCWANE SCIENCE CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetALABAMA GIVING INC: $400 over 1y, 0.9% 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.

Campbell Estelle S Ch…The Daniel Foundation…Protective Life Found…The Community Foundat…Robert R Meyer Founda…Hill Crest Foundation…Mike and Gillian Good…Alabama Power Foundat…The Joseph S Bruno Ch…Susan Mott Webb Chari…Walker Area Community…Orlean & Ralph W Bees…
Campbell Estelle S Char FoundationPA26.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Campbell Estelle S Char Foundation · The Daniel Foundation of Alabama · Protective Life Foundation · The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham · Robert R Meyer Foundation · Hill Crest Foundation Inc · Mike and Gillian Goodrich Foundation · Alabama Power Foundation Inc · The Joseph S Bruno Charitable Foundation · Susan Mott Webb Charitable Trust · Walker Area Community Foundation Inc · Orlean & Ralph W Beeson Fund

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 Charles T Campbell-Charitable Fdn funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Charles T Campbell-Charitable Fdn. 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 19 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Charles T Campbell-Charitable Fdn’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