Skip to content

· Private foundation

Emil Babinger Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$249k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$130k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Education$519kArts & Culture$375kRecreation & Sports$174kFood & Nutrition$115kHuman Services$85kYouth Development$66kReligion$65kPhilanthropy$15kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $105k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $130k
$12,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EMPORIA ARTS COUNCIL$130,000
EMPORIA SENIOR CENTER$15,000
ST JOSEPHS CATHOLIC CHURCH$15,000
LEARNING CONNECTION OF THE FLINT HL$15,000
ESU FOUNDATION INC$15,000
EMPORIA HIGH SCHOOL$12,500
Individual grant recipient$12,000
CAMP WOOD YMCA$10,000
FLINTHILLS TECHNICAL COLLEGE$10,000
LYON COUNTY 4-H$7,000
ESU FOUNDATION INC$5,000
KANSAS BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS$2,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–25, $85k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 4%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 4%CAMP WOOD YMCA: $10k → 11%CAMP WOOD YMCA: $9k → 11%CAMP WOOD YMCA: $9k → 11%CAMP WOOD YMCA: $8k → 11%CAMP WOOD YMCA: $8k → 11%CAMP WOOD YMCA: $7k → 11%EMPORIA SENIOR CENTER: $15k → 16%EMPORIA SENIOR CENTER: $15k → 16%EMPORIA SENIOR CENTER: $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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 8% of Emil Babinger Charitable Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in KS; by stated purpose, 92%.

Emil Babinger Charitable Trustlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 14 repeat orgs$107k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +60% since the first grant, against -30% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
11

Total granted

$1.3M
$92k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+60%
-30%

Still filing today

29%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesArts & CultureFood & NutritionRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • EA
    EMPORIA ARTS COUNCIL
    6× · 2020–2025 · $330k · revenue +49%
  • CW
    CAMP WOOD YMCA INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $50k · revenue +194%
  • ES
    Emporia Senior Center Inc
    3× · 2020–2025 · $35k · revenue +60%

Funded once

  • SJ
    ST JOSEPH CATHOLIC SCHOOL
    one grant, 2021 · $35k
  • LC
    LEARNING CONNECTION OF THE FLINT HI
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
  • SL
    SOUTHERN LYON COUNTY USD 252
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
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

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
Emporia Community Day Care Center

The center provides day care to community children between the ages of two weeks to 6 years from 6:30 am to 6:00 pm monday through friday.

—
2
Community Foundation of Southeast Kansas

The Community Foundation of Southeast Kansas servces the region by encouraging charitable giving benefiting the common good and the quality of life.

Philanthropy
3
El Dorado Community Foundation

The El Dorado Community Foundation is dedicated to strengthening our community both now and for future generations. The Foundation fulfills its mission by:- Encouraging private giving for the public good.- Building and maintaining a…

Philanthropy
4
Eudora Schools Foundation Inc

Enhancing and promoting the educational system in Eudora, Kansas and providing the Eudora School District and students with financial assistance from donations.

Education
5
Emporia Area Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau

To be proactive in creating an environment for business and community success

—
6
Western Kansas Community Foundation

Enriching western Kansas life through philanthropy, collaboration and leadership.

Philanthropy
7
Young Men's Christian Association

The YMCA of Edwardsville is a public charity, led by a volunteer Board of Directors. Their mission is to put Christian principles into practice through programs that build a healthy body, mind and spirit for all.

Human Services
8
South Central Community Foundation

To enhance the life, culture, and community of South Central Kansas by connecting people who care with causes that matter.

Philanthropy
9
Eastgate Plaza Inc

Provide low income, multi family housing under sec. 8 of the national housing act.

—
10
Appleton Ymca Endowment Trust

Endowment support for the Appleton Branch of the YMCA of the Fox Cities.

Human Services
11
Emporia Area Chamber Foundation

To support the efforts of the emporia area chamber of commerce in being proactive in creating an environment for business and community success.

Philanthropy
12
Edwards County Farm Bureau

The Edwards County Farm Bureau was organized to support and preserve the best interests of its agricultural communities, to educate the public and to enhance framing profitability for future generations.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Emporia Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Olpe Community Improvement Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 28 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ESU FOUNDATION INC: $547,500 · OtherESU FOUNDATION INCFLINT HILLS TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $70,000 · OtherFLINT HILLS TECHNICAL COLLEGEST JOSEPHS CATHOLIC CHURCH: $65,000 · OtherST JOSEPHS CATHOLIC CHURCHLEARNING CONNECTION OF THE FLINT HILLS INC: $45,000 · OtherST JOSEPH CATHOLIC SCHOOL: $35,000 · Other+17 more: $175,950 · Other+17 moreEMPORIA ARTS COUNCIL: $330,000 · Arts & CultureEMPORIA ARTS COUNCILCAMP WOOD YMCA INC: $49,610 · Human ServicesEmporia Senior Center Inc: $35,000 · Human ServicesEMPORIA RESCUE MISSION INC: $65,000 · Food & NutritionEmporia Community Foundation: $15,000 · PhilanthropyOlpe Community Improvement Inc: $5,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$938,450Arts & Culture$330,000Human Services$84,610Food & Nutrition$65,000Philanthropy$15,000Recreation & Sports$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEMPORIA ARTS COUNCIL: $330,000 over 6y, 20% of budgetEMPORIA RESCUE MISSION INC: $65,000 over 3y, 11% of budgetCAMP WOOD YMCA INC: $49,610 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetEmporia Senior Center Inc: $35,000 over 3y, 8.8% of budgetEmporia Community Foundation: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetOlpe Community Improvement Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHETLINGER DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES I: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGardner Edgerton Schools Foundation: $750 over 1y, 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 EMPORIA ARTS COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds EMPORIA RESCUE MISSION INC ↗
  • Who funds CAMP WOOD YMCA INC ↗
  • Who funds Emporia Senior Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds Emporia Community Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Olpe Community Improvement Inc ↗
  • Who funds HETLINGER DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES I ↗
  • Who funds KANSAS BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds Gardner Edgerton Schools 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.

Emporia Community FoundationKS19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Emporia Community Foundation · Jane & Bernard Reeble Foundation · The Trusler Foundation Inc · Ws & Ec Jones Testamentary Trust · E L and Z Irene Hopkins Private Foundation · Loretto a Langley Trust · Lewis Humphreys Charitable Trust · The Sunderland Foundation · Servant Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Emil Babinger Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Emil Babinger Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Emil Babinger Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Emil Babinger Charitable Trust 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.

    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 28 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 Emil Babinger’s filings →

    More from the funding graph