Skip to content
Propel Schools Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Propel Schools Foundation

The PROPEL SCHOOLS FOUNDATION supports the mission of propel schools: to catalyze the transformation of public education so that all children have access to high-performing public schools.

$714k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$471k
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.

Education$7.8M
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $612,618, the rows itemized in this filing. The $714,069 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $101,451 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $121k
  • $250k+1 grant · $471k
$121,459
Median grant
1
States reached
$22M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PROPEL SCHOOLS INC$470,985
PROPEL MONTOUR$121,459
PROPEL HAZELWOOD$13,977
PROPEL BRADDOCK HILLS$6,197
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $808k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $604k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $601k → 11%PROPEL HOMESTEAD: $562k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $543k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $471k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $339k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $336k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $300k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $290k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $230k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $213k → 11%PROPEL PITCAIRN: $163k → 11%PROPEL PITCAIRN: $158k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $156k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $151k → 11%PROPEL EAST: $126k → 11%PROPEL MONTOUR: $121k → 11%PROPEL MONTOUR: $111k → 11%PROPEL MCKEESPORT: $103k → 11%PROPEL HAZELWOOD: $102k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $101k → 11%PROPEL MCKEESPORT: $95k → 11%PROPEL MCKEESPORT: $89k → 11%PROPEL EAST: $75k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $57k → 11%PROPEL EAST: $51k → 11%PROPEL SUNRISE: $48k → 11%PROPEL NORTHSIDE: $48k → 11%PROPEL MONTOUR: $45k → 11%PROPEL MONTOUR: $44k → 11%PROPEL MONTOUR: $42k → 11%PROPEL HAZELWOOD: $40k → 11%PROPEL NORTHSIDE: $39k → 11%PROPEL MONTOUR: $37k → 11%PROPEL PITCAIRN: $29k → 11%PROPEL HAZELWOOD: $27k → 11%PROPEL HAZELWOOD: $26k → 11%PROPEL SUNRISE: $22k → 11%PROPEL NORTHSIDE: $22k → 11%PROPEL HAZELWOOD: $20k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $19k → 11%PROPEL MCKEESPORT: $17k → 11%PROPEL MCKEESPORT: $14k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $14k → 11%PROPEL EAST: $14k → 11%PROPEL SCHOOLS INC: $14k → 11%PROPEL HAZELWOOD: $14k → 11%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$7.8M · 8 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
0

Total granted

$7.8M
$0

Still filing today

100%
0%

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
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

  • PS
    Propel Schools Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $5.9M · revenue +15%
  • PC
    Propel Charter School-Montour
    9× · 2017–2025 · $419k · revenue +209%
  • PC
    Propel Charter School - Pitcairn
    8× · 2017–2024 · $370k · revenue +1%

Funded once

    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
    Provident Charter School

    a Pennsylvania Charter School that serves elementary (Grades 2-8) Level students with dyslexia, a learning disorder that can adversely impact a students ability to read, write, and learn

    Education
    2
    Young Scholars of Western Pennsylvania Charter School

    To establish a unique, proactive alternative to traditional public education which provides an ideal international environment for the intellectual & social development of its students

    Education
    3
    Pennsylvania Steam Academy Charter School

    The goal of Pennsylvania Steam Academy is to make education fun, engaging and significantly streghthen the city and the region with an innovative approach to education

    Education
    4
    Spectrum Charter School Inc

    Charter School- Our mission is to provide a life changing enviroment where students and their families feel safe, comfortable, and achieve their highest potential. We envision every child being educated, with skills

    Education
    5
    Urban Pathways 6-12 Charter School

    Charter school providing education to students from sixth through twelfth grade.

    Education
    6
    Catalyst Public Schools

    Catalyst Public School is a tuition-free public school offering a school environment that prepares our scholars to be leaders and change-makers.

    Education
    7
    Catalyst Academy Charter School

    Catalyst academy's mission is to create a world-class k-8 school where all children are prepared for college, career, and life.

    Education
    8
    Young Scholars of Greater Allegheny Charter School

    To establish a unique, proactive alternative to traditional public education which provides an ideal environment for the intellectual & social development of its students

    Education
    9
    Compass Public Charter School

    Public Education.

    Education
    10
    Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School

    To provide an academically challenging, knowledge-based curriculum, individually designed for each child's needs.

    Education
    11
    Rise Charter School Inc

    Public Education.

    Education
    12
    Pocatello Community Charter School

    Public Education.

    Education
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Propel Schools Inc; the most unlike its peers is Propel Charter School-Hazelwood. 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

    8 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)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    8/8
    Grantees still filing
    8/8
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    Propel Schools Inc: $5,856,591 · EducationPropel Schools IncPropel Charter School-Montour: $418,768 · EducationPropel Charter School-MontourPropel Charter School - Pitcairn: $369,919 · EducationPropel Charter School-McKeesport: $346,699 · EducationPropel Charter School-East: $292,559 · Education+3 more: $485,870 · Education+3 more
    Education$7,770,406

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

    25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPropel Schools Inc: $5,856,591 over 9y, 4.4% of budgetPropel Charter School-Montour: $418,768 over 9y, 1.1% of budgetPropel Charter School - Pitcairn: $369,919 over 8y, 2.9% of budgetPropel Charter School-McKeesport: $346,699 over 8y, 1.7% of budgetPropel Charter School-East: $292,559 over 7y, 1.6% of budgetPropel Charter School-Hazelwood: $235,028 over 9y, 1.5% of budgetPropel Charter School-Northside: $127,011 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetPropel Charter School Sunrise: $123,831 over 9y, 0.5% 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 Propel Schools Inc ↗
    • Who funds Propel Charter School-Montour ↗
    • Who funds Propel Charter School - Pitcairn ↗
    • Who funds Propel Charter School-McKeesport ↗
    • Who funds Propel Charter School-East ↗
    • Who funds Propel Charter School-Hazelwood ↗
    • Who funds Propel Charter School-Northside ↗
    • Who funds Propel Charter School Sunrise ↗

    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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

    Tickets for Kids Foun…
    Tickets for Kids FoundationPA17.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Tickets for Kids 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 Propel Schools Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Propel Schools Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

    2025
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
      8report 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.

      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 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 Propel Schools’ 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