Skip to content
Edward Payson George Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Edward Payson George Charitable Trust

Its FY2017 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.1M
Granted FY2017
10
Grants FY2017
1
States reached
$420k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2017 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2017

  • Under $10k6 grants · $21k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $388k
  • $250k+2 grants · $675k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AIDS ACTION COMMITTEE OF MASSACHUSETTS$420,000
FENWAY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC$255,000
MATTAPAN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER$218,864
EAST BOSTON NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH CENTER$169,000
COMMUNITY MUSIC CENTER OF BOSTON$5,000
BEACON HILL VILLAGE$5,000
HALEY HOUSE INC$5,000
FRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC GARDEN$2,500
BEACON HILL SEMINARS$2,500
DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE$500
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, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%BEACON HILL VILLAGE: $5k → 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
Mass General Brigham Health Plan Inc

Mass general brigham health plan's mission is to promote the health and wellness of our members, and to help ensure equitable, affordbale health care for the diverse communities we serve.

Health
2
Harvard Street Neighborhood Health Center Inc

Harvard street neighborhood health center serves as the primary health resource to our community, through the delivery of comprehensive patient-centered medical care.

Health
3
North End Community Health Committee

To operate a community health center providing a full range of health care services including medical, dental, vision, mental health and elder services to residents of the north end, charlestown and west end of boston, massachusetts.

Health
4
Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program Inc

The mission of the boston health care for the homeless program (bhchp) is to provide or assure access to the highest quality health care for all individuals and families experiencing homelessness in our community.

Human Services
5
Children's Hospital Corporation

Provider of pediatric healthcare, education, research & community service

Health
6
Massachusetts Council of Human Services Providers Inc

To advance the interests of the human services sector and providers through advocacy, education, and engagement of diverse stakeholders for collective impact.

—
7
Greater New Bedford Community Health Center Inc

To serve, educate, and inspire our patients in becoming more knowledgeable and participatory in their total health. to be a regional resource and leader focused on improving public health in the communities we serve.

—
8
Commonwealth Care Alliance Inc

Commonwealth care alliance, inc.'s mission is to improve the health and well-being of people with significant needs by innovating, coordinating and providing the highest quality, individualized care.

Health
9
Boston Medical Center Corporation

Boston medical center's mission is to provide consistently excellent and accessible health services to all in need of care regardless of status and ability to pay.

Health
10
The Boston Health Net Corporation

The boston healthnet operates to further the charitable and educational missions of its member institutions and health centers.

—
11
Central Maine Healthcare Corporation

To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustful environment through the expertise, committment, and compassion of our family of caregivers.

Health
12
Massachusetts Health & Hospital Assoc Inc

To advance the health of individuals and communities by serving as the leading voice for all massachusetts hospitals and healthcare systems and to help them provide high quality, cost-effective and equitable patient care.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fenway Community Health Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc. 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

10 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.

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)
9/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AIDS ACTION COMMITTEE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $420,000 · OtherAIDS ACTION COMMITTEE OF MASSACHUSETTS INCMATTAPAN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC: $218,864 · OtherMATTAPAN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INCFENWAY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC: $255,000 · HealthFENWAY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INCNEIGHBORHEALTH CORPORATION: $169,000 · HealthNEIGHBORHEALTH CORPORATION+1 more: $500 · HealthHALEY HOUSE INC & AFFILIATES: $5,000 · Housing & ShelterCOMMUNITY MUSIC CENTER OF BOSTON INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureBEACON HILL VILLAGE INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC GARDEN INC: $2,500 · EnvironmentBEACON HILL SEMINARS INC: $2,500 · Education
Other$638,864Health$424,500Housing & Shelter$5,000Arts & Culture$5,000Human Services$5,000Environment$2,500Education$2,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAIDS ACTION COMMITTEE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC: $420,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetFENWAY COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC: $255,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMATTAPAN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC: $218,864 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetNEIGHBORHEALTH CORPORATION: $169,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHALEY HOUSE INC & AFFILIATES: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY MUSIC CENTER OF BOSTON INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBEACON HILL VILLAGE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBEACON HILL SEMINARS INC: $2,500 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $500 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.

Boston Foundation IncFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Boston Foundation IncMA13× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boston 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 Edward Payson George Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Edward Payson George Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Beacon Hill Village Inc: 28% of income from government
  • Fenway Community Health Center Inc: 27% of income from government
  • Mattapan Community Health Center Inc: 21% of income from government
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
  • Neighborhealth Corporation: 4% of income from government
  • Friends of the Public Garden Inc: 1% of income from government
  • Community Music Center of Boston Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
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 10 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 Edward Payson George’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