Skip to content
Edward E Rieck Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Edward E Rieck 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.

$83k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$17k
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.

Health$333kPhilanthropy$144kReligion$100kEducation$36kPublic Safety & Disaster$36kYouth Development$36kHuman Services$36k
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k12 grants · $67k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $17k
$4,169
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNITED WAY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY$16,675
WEST PENN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$8,337
UPMC MERCY$8,337
PASSAVANT HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$8,337
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH$8,337
THE SALVATION ARMY$4,169
LUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNOD$4,169
LUTHERAN SVC SOCIETY OF W PA$4,169
BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION$4,169
THE CHILDRENS INSTITUTE OF PITTSBURGH$4,169
AMERICAN RED CROSS$4,169
KINGSLEY ASSOCIATION$4,169
ST BARNABAS NURSING HOME$4,169
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 (FY17–25, $72k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $5k → 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $5k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $4k → 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $4k → 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $4k → 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $4k → 14%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $4k → 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $3k → 14%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $4k → 11%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $4k → 11%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $4k → 11%BLIND & VISION REHABILITATION: $3k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$577k · 13 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
0

Total granted

$577k
$0

Still filing today

46%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Human ServicesPhilanthropyEducationHealthOther
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

  • PH
    PASSAVANT HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $72k · revenue +130%
  • AN
    American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches
    9× · 2017–2025 · $36k · revenue +46%
  • TK
    THE KINGSLEY ASSOCIATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $36k · revenue +53%

Funded once

    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 14 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)
    2
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    7/7
    Grantees still filing
    4/7
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    UPMC: $73,206 · OtherUPMCWEST PENN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $71,890 · OtherWEST PENN HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONCHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH: $71,890 · OtherCHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGHLUTHERAN SVC SOCIETY OF W PA: $36,024 · OtherLUTHERAN SVC SOCIETY OF W PATHE SALVATION ARMY: $36,024 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYTHE KINGSLEY ASSOCIATION: $36,024 · OtherTHE KINGSLEY ASSOCIATIONLUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNOD: $36,024 · OtherLUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNODST BARNABAS INC: $27,916 · OtherST BARNABAS INCTHE UNITED WAY OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $143,827 · PhilanthropyTHE UNITED WAY OF SOUTHWESTERN PE…PASSAVANT HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $71,890 · PhilanthropyPASSAVANT HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $36,024 · Human ServicesAmerican Na…VISABILITY: $36,024 · Human ServicesVISABILITYTHE CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE OF PITTSBURGH: $36,024 · EducationST BARNABAS NURSING HOME INC: $8,108 · Health
    Other$388,998Philanthropy$215,717Human Services$72,048Education$36,024Health$8,108

    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 budgetTHE UNITED WAY OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $143,827 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetPASSAVANT HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $71,890 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE OF PITTSBURGH: $36,024 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $36,024 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTHE KINGSLEY ASSOCIATION: $36,024 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetVISABILITY: $36,024 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetST BARNABAS NURSING HOME INC: $8,108 over 2y, 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 THE UNITED WAY OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA ↗
    • Who funds PASSAVANT HOSPITAL FOUNDATION ↗
    • Who funds THE CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE OF PITTSBURGH ↗
    • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
    • Who funds THE KINGSLEY ASSOCIATION ↗
    • Who funds VISABILITY ↗
    • Who funds ST BARNABAS NURSING HOME INC ↗

    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.

    M L Mason Mem Fund 12…The Pittsburgh Founda…Amazonsmile Foundation
    M L Mason Mem Fund 12-26-35PA15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: M L Mason Mem Fund 12-26-35 · The Pittsburgh Foundation · 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 Edward E Rieck Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Edward E Rieck Charitable Trust. 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
      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 14 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 Edward E Rieck’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