Skip to content
J R Albert Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

J R Albert 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.

$250k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$32k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$1.1MFood & Nutrition$589kHuman Services$425kEducation$142kRecreation & Sports$125kCrime & Legal$30kHousing & Shelter$13kInternational$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $11k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $239k
$27,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$5.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MERCY CHEFS$32,000
CONVOY OF HOPE$32,000
TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL$28,000
SOS HEALTH CARE INC$28,000
TARGET HUNGER$28,000
MUSC FOUNDATION$27,000
DOORS TO FREEDOM$26,000
MAYO CLINIC$25,000
PATTISON'S ACADEMY$13,000
STAR GOSPEL MISSION$6,000
SAMARITAN'S PURSE$5,000
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, $341k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MERCY CHEFS: $32k → 20%MERCY CHEFS: $30k → 20%MERCY CHEFS: $11k → 20%TARGET HUNGER: $35k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $38k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $31k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $31k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $30k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $29k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $28k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $26k → 16%TARGET HUNGER: $20k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
MA
CT
CA
MO
VA
NC
SC
TX
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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 17 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +105% since the first grant, against -67% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
5

Total granted

$2.0M
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+105%
-67%

Still filing today

71%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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 ServicesHealthRecreation & SportsEducationCrime & LegalReligionOther
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

  • TC
    Texas Children's Hospital
    9× · 2017–2025 · $310k · revenue +105%
  • SR
    SPRINGFIELD RESCUE MISSION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $261k · revenue +93%
  • SH
    SOS HEALTH CARE INC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $221k · revenue +106%

Funded once

  • LD
    LIONS DEN
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
  • NORTHEAST ARC INC
    one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue -67%
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
Good Samaritan Mission Inc

To care for the needy, share the good news of jesus christ and change lives by providing counseling, life skill training, dignity gained through work and christ-centered discipleship.

—
2
Free to Worship Ministries

This church will be that place of emergency where people can come any time of day or night. We will be a place that will lead people back to health both spiritually and naturally.

Religion
3
House of Mercy
Human Services
4
The Midnight Mission

The midnight mission seeks to offer a bridge to self sufficiency for people experiencing homelessness through interim shelter, advocacy, education, training and job placement, make available the necessities of life, offer the 12-step…

Human Services
5
Samaritan House Inc

Samaritan House is committed to fostering personal safety, growth, and self-sufficiency in adults and their children through freedom from domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking and removing their risks of homelessness.

Housing & Shelter
6
Saint Joseph's Mercy Care Services Inc

We, saint joseph's health system and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities. honoring the heritage and advancing the ministry of the sisters of…

—
7
Revive Inc

Empowering individuals on their journey to lasting recovery. our team of dedicated professionals offer a dynamic blend of therapeutic support and personal empowerment. we dont just offer recovery; we provide a roadmap to your vibrant…

Health
8
Shield of Faith Missions

Sof is called to empower warriors to find purpose, be resilient, and live well. we develop and provide customized treatment plans for veterans through our national network of partners.

Religion
9
Mercy Home for Children Inc

Mercy home provides essential services for children and adults with developmental disabilities. mercy home's mission is to ensure the quality of life for persons with developmental disabilities through the recognition of each person's…

—
10
Christ's Hospital
—
11
Genesis Health Inc

To advance health and well-being of persons requiring rehabilitation through superior outcomes, service, education and research.

Health
12
The Brien Center for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services

The brien center provides a continuum of care for children, adolescents, adults and families living with significant and persistent mental health and substance use disorders. we are guided by the belief that everyone in berkshire county…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Star Gospel Mission; 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.
04the 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 25 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
14/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Texas Children's Hospital: $310,000 · HealthTexas Children's HospitalDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $217,500 · HealthDana-Farber Cancer Institute In…MAYO CLINIC: $190,000 · HealthMAYO CLINICTarget Hunger Inc: $268,000 · Human ServicesTarget Hunger IncSPRINGFIELD RESCUE MISSION: $260,500 · Human ServicesSPRINGFIELD RESCUE MISSIONMERCY CHEFS INC: $73,000 · Human ServicesMERCY CHEFS INCMy Sister's House Inc: $37,000 · Human ServicesMy Sister's House IncSOS HEALTH CARE INC: $221,000 · OtherSOS HEALTH CARE INCSOVEREIGN GRACE ACADEMY: $95,500 · OtherSOVEREIGN GRACE ACADEMYIndividual grant recipient: $67,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipi…SALVATION ARMY: $54,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMYMUSC FOUNDATION: $46,000 · OtherMUSC FOUNDATION+7 more: $35,000 · Other+7 moreCONVOY OF HOPE: $321,000 · InternationalCONVOY OF HOPEPATTISON'S ACADEMY: $197,500 · EducationHEALING FARM MINISTRIES: $108,500 · Recreation & SportsFOR THE CHILDREN: $16,000 · Recreation & SportsDOORS TO FREEDOM: $30,000 · Crime & LegalSAMARITAN'S PURSE: $5,000 · Religion
Health$717,500Human Services$638,500Other$518,500International$321,000Education$197,500Recreation & Sports$124,500Crime & Legal$30,000Religion$5,000

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 budgetCONVOY OF HOPE: $321,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTexas Children's Hospital: $310,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTarget Hunger Inc: $268,000 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetSPRINGFIELD RESCUE MISSION: $260,500 over 8y, 0.9% of budgetSOS HEALTH CARE INC: $221,000 over 7y, 1.5% of budgetDana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: $217,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPATTISON'S ACADEMY: $197,500 over 8y, 4.1% of budgetMAYO CLINIC: $190,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetHEALING FARM MINISTRIES: $108,500 over 7y, 28% of budgetMERCY CHEFS INC: $73,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMy Sister's House Inc: $37,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetDOORS TO FREEDOM: $30,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetFOR THE CHILDREN: $16,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetSTAR GOSPEL MISSION: $13,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNORTHEAST ARC INC: $2,000 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.

  • Who funds CONVOY OF HOPE ↗
  • Who funds Texas Children's Hospital ↗
  • Who funds Target Hunger Inc ↗
  • Who funds SPRINGFIELD RESCUE MISSION ↗
  • Who funds SOS HEALTH CARE INC ↗
  • Who funds Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc ↗
  • Who funds PATTISON'S ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds MAYO CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds HEALING FARM MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds MERCY CHEFS INC ↗
  • Who funds My Sister's House Inc ↗
  • Who funds DOORS TO FREEDOM ↗
  • Who funds FOR THE CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds STAR GOSPEL MISSION ↗
  • Who funds SAMARITAN'S PURSE ↗
  • Who funds NORTHEAST ARC 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.

Coastal Community Fou…Henry & Sylvia Yaschi…The Bank of America C…Network for GoodThe Blackbaud Giving …Morgan Stanley Global…Natl Christian Charit…American Online Givin…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Coastal Community Foundation of South Carolina IncSC17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Coastal Community Foundation of South Carolina Inc · Henry & Sylvia Yaschik Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Network for Good · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 J R Albert Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from J R Albert Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 73%
  • Northeast Arc Inc: 73% of income from government
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 25 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 J R Albert’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