Skip to content
Manchester Bidwell Corporation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Manchester Bidwell Corporation

See schedule o MANCHESTER BIDWELL CORPORATION (mbc) supports its affiliate nonprofit organizations that deliver workforce training, youth arts education, jazz performances and education.

$583k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$560k
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.

Employment$2.5MArts & Culture$419kEducation$320kCommunity Improvement$145kYouth Development$53k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $18k
  • $250k+1 grant · $560k
$559,629
Median grant
1
States reached
$9.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BIDWELL TRAINING CENTER$559,629
ALLEGHENY CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT$17,765
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 (FY20–20, $150k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, 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%LAUREL HIGHLANDS WORKFORCE: $150k → 10%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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 5 repeat orgs$625k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +69% since the first grant, against +26% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
5

Total granted

$2.8M
$625k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+69%
+26%

Still filing today

100%
100%

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
Arts & CultureEducationHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • MC
    MANCHESTER CRAFTSMEN'S GUILD
    4× · 2017–2020 · $419k · revenue +69%
  • AC
    ALLEGHENY CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
    9× · 2017–2025 · $145k · revenue +159%
  • BA
    BUFFALO ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER INC
    3× · 2018–2020 · $96k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • EC
    ERIE CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue +77% · 27% of their budget
  • UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGHgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue +26%
  • LH
    LAUREL HIGHLANDS WORKFORCE AND OPPORTUNITY CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue +216% · 30% of their budget
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
Manchester Bidwell Corporation

See schedule o manchester bidwell corporation (mbc) supports its affiliate nonprofit organizations that deliver workforce training, youth arts education, jazz performances and education. mbc provides administrative and operational cohesion…

Public Benefit
2
Youth Enrichment Services Inc

Youth enrichment services, inc. was founded in 1994 for the purpose of providing at-risk teens and low-income families residing in allegheny county a comprehensive in-home peer mentoring program, juvenile alternative to detention,…

Human Services
3
Community College Preparatory Academy Public Charter School

The mission of the community college preparatory academy public charter school is to provide the education and skills development to empower and prepare under-credited adults for postsecondary educational success, viable employment and…

Education
4
Drexel University

Drexel university fulfills its founder's vision of preparing each new generation of students for productive professional and civic lives while also focusing its collective expertise on solving society's greatest problems. drexel is an…

Education
5
Pratt Institute

Pratt is an institute, an experience, and an idea. what started as a radical experiment to expand access to creative careers is now a community of 5,137 grad and undergrad students working across 48 programs with 1,200 dedicated faculty.…

Education
6
Seton Hill University

Comprehensive institution of higher learning providing undergraduate and graduate student education.

Education
7
The Da Vinci Discovery Center of Science and Technology Inc

Our mission is to bring science to life and lives to science. through inquiry-based science learning experiences, we champion the next generation and help build a technical and scientific workforce. see schedule o.

Arts & Culture
8
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

We educate the next generation of leaders to improve the health of our society.

Education
9
Elizabethtown College

Provide a transformative educational experience that cultivates strengths of its students.

Education
10
Literacy Council of Lanc-Leb Lva

Our mission is success through lifelong learning and learning for life. our vision is for adults to have the skills to transform their lives, sustain their families and strengthen their communities.

Education
11
John Carroll University

As a jesuit catholic university committed to academic rigor, inclusive excellence, and care for the whole person, john carroll university inspires individuals of intellect and character to learn, lead and serve in the community and…

Education
12
Pittsburgh Glass Center Inc

Glass art: we teach it. we create it. we promote it. we support those who make it. pittsburgh glass center (pgc) cultivates an inclusive and welcoming environment that encourages everyone, from the casually curious to the master artist, to…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Center for Arts and Technology; the most unlike its peers is Manchester Craftsmen's Guild. 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

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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BIDWELL TRAINING CENTER INC: $2,081,798 · OtherBIDWELL TRAINING CENTER INCALLEGHENY CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $145,457 · OtherALLEGHENY CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBUFFALO ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER INC: $95,520 · OtherMANCHESTER CRAFTSMEN'S GUILD: $419,165 · Arts & CultureMANCHESTER CRAFTSM…CLEVELAND CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY: $74,921 · Arts & CultureCLEVELAND CENTER F…HOPE CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY INC: $71,250 · Arts & CultureHOPE CENTER FOR AR…ERIE CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY INC: $200,000 · EducationERIE CENTER…UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $150,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY …LAUREL HIGHLANDS WORKFORCE AND OPPORTUNITY CENTER: $150,000 · Human ServicesNATIONAL CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY: $53,451 · Youth Development
Other$2,322,775Arts & Culture$565,336Education$350,000Human Services$150,000Youth Development$53,451

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 budgetBIDWELL TRAINING CENTER INC: $2,081,798 over 7y, 10% of budgetMANCHESTER CRAFTSMEN'S GUILD: $419,165 over 4y, 3.6% of budgetERIE CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY INC: $200,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLAUREL HIGHLANDS WORKFORCE AND OPPORTUNITY CENTER: $150,000 over 1y, 30% of budgetALLEGHENY CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $145,457 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetBUFFALO ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER INC: $95,520 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetCLEVELAND CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY: $74,921 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetHOPE CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY INC: $71,250 over 1y, 9.0% of budgetNATIONAL CENTER FOR ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY: $53,451 over 1y, 5.7% 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.

The Pittsburgh Founda…The Bank of America C…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Pittsburgh FoundationPA15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Pittsburgh Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation 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 Manchester Bidwell Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Manchester Bidwell Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 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 Manchester Bidwell’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