Skip to content

· Private foundation

Platt Charitable Fund Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$184k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$111k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Human Services$375kHealth$273kReligion$87k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $111k
$20,400
Median grant
3
States reached
$4.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HELPING MAMAS$111,000
GEORGIA RSVP$30,000
CANNON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH$20,400
JUNIOR AUXILARY OF MCCOMB$10,000
AMANDA RILEY FOUNDATION$7,500
LIFEPATH HOSPICE$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 (FY21–24, $347k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HELPING MAMAS: $112k → 9%HELPING MAMAS: $112k → 9%HELPING MAMAS: $111k → 9%HELPING MAMAS: $12k → 9%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 81% of Platt Charitable Fund Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 90% of the giving stays in GA; by stated purpose, 55%.

Platt Charitable Fund Inclessmore 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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$724k · 7 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +145% since the first grant, against +55% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$724k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+145%
+55%

Still filing today

43%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesEducationReligionOther
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

  • HM
    HELPING MAMAS INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $347k · revenue +145%
  • GR
    Georgia RSVP Inc
    3× · 2022–2024 · $60k · revenue ×13 · 54% of their budget
  • LH
    LifePath Hospice Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $48k · revenue +5%

Funded once

  • SG
    Southeast Gwinnett Cooperative Ministry Incgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue +55%
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
05the grantee network

5 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 8 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HELPING MAMAS INC: $347,000 · Human ServicesHELPING MAMAS INCCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $110,000 · OtherCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATIONCANNON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $76,500 · OtherCANNON UNITED METHODIST CHURCHJUNIOR AUXILARY OF MCCOMB: $27,500 · OtherJUNIOR AUXILARY OF MCCOMBGeorgia RSVP Inc: $60,000 · HealthGeorgia RSVP IncLifePath Hospice Inc: $47,500 · HealthLifePath Hospice…AMANDA RILEY FOUNDATION: $55,000 · EducationSoutheast Gwinnett Cooperative Ministry Inc: $10,000 · Religion
Human Services$347,000Other$214,000Health$107,500Education$55,000Religion$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHELPING MAMAS INC: $347,000 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetGeorgia RSVP Inc: $60,000 over 3y, 54% of budgetLifePath Hospice Inc: $47,500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSoutheast Gwinnett Cooperative Ministry Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.6% 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 HELPING MAMAS INC ↗
  • Who funds Georgia RSVP Inc ↗
  • Who funds AMANDA RILEY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LifePath Hospice Inc ↗
  • Who funds Southeast Gwinnett Cooperative Ministry 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.

Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · 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 Platt Charitable Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Platt Charitable Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 8 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Platt’s filings →

    More from the funding graph