Skip to content
The Bradford Todd Fleck Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Bradford Todd Fleck Foundation

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.

$8k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$21kHuman Services$19kHousing & Shelter$8kFood & Nutrition$6kRecreation & Sports$6kReligion$1kYouth Development$1kEmployment$300Other$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$349k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ARC OF INDIANA$4,000
INDIANA SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC$2,000
LOCAL SOLUTIONS$1,000
LINCOLN-CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY CENTER INC$1,000
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 (FY19–25, $34k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 60% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%ARC OF INDIANA: $4k → 16%ARC OF INDIANA: $4k → 16%DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES INC: $1k → 13%ARC OF INDIANA: $4k → 16%ARC OF INDIANA: $4k → 16%ARC OF INDIANA: $4k → 16%OUR HOSPICE OF SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA INC: $200 → 13%ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC: $4k → 13%ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC: $4k → 13%ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC: $2k → 13%ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC: $2k → 13%ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC: $370 → 13%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$57k · 7 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +21% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
9

Total granted

$57k
$6k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%
0%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentEmploymentCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • TA
    THE ARC OF INDIANA INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $20k · revenue +34%
  • TA
    THE ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY
    5× · 2020–2024 · $12k · revenue +345%
  • LS
    LOCAL SOLUTIONS
    5× · 2021–2025 · $7k · revenue +63%

Funded once

  • SS
    ST SAVIOURS PARISH
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • FF
    FOUNDATION FOR YOUTH OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2021 · $1k · revenue +9%
  • HP
    Housing Partnerships Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $1k · revenue -29%
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
Indiana Statewide Independent Living Council Inc

To empower its peers with disabilities to lead and control their own lives.

Human Services
2
The Arc of Northwest Indiana Inc

Mission is to provide necessary resources to persons with disabilities in order to assist them in enhancing their daily lives. we provide pre-vocational training, habilitation services, individual support, and employment services based on…

Human Services
3
The Arc of the Capital Area

We empower central texans with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families through compassionate case management and innovative programs.

—
4
Arc Group Employment Services

To provide employment opportunities to central ohioans with developmental disabilities.

Employment
5
The Arc of the Mid Ohio Valley Inc

Mission is to promote and advocate for the welfare of people with intellectual and other developmental disabilities.

—
6
Leadership Indianapolis Inc

Educate, Inspire, Connect and Mobilize Community Leaders to serve and strengthen greater Indianapolis.

Public Benefit
7
Arc of Vigo County Inc

The Arc of Vigo County is committed to providing advocacy, parent support and training, respite services for families who have a family member at home with a developmental disability, a supported employment service for persons with…

Human Services
8
The Arc of Indiana County

Our mission is to work to include all children and adults with developmental delays or other disabilities in every community by identifying barriers, building partnerships, and realizing solutions.

Education
9
The Arc of Lancaster County

Empowering people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (i/dd) and their families to lead full, satisfying, independent lives of their choice.

Health
10
The Arc of Crawford County Inc

The ARC of Crawford County, Inc. advocates for the rights of citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities and enhances their lives by promoting maximum independence and affording them opportunities for enrichment.

—
11
The Arc of Opportunity in North Central Massachusetts Inc

To create and support lifetime opportunities in the community for individuals with disabilities and their families to reach their fullest potential by providing advocacy, education, employment, residential and recreational services to…

—
12
Colorado Springs Independence Center

We work with people with disabilities, their families and the community to create independence so that all may thrive.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Arc of Indiana Inc; the most unlike its peers is Blue Tassel Farm. 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

14 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. 14 of the 16 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)
13/14
Grantees still filing
8/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE ARC OF INDIANA INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesTHE ARC OF INDIANA INCTHE ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY: $12,370 · Human ServicesTHE ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTYDEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES INC: $1,500 · Human Services+1 more: $200 · Human ServicesLOCAL SOLUTIONS: $7,000 · OtherLOCAL SOLUTIONSBLUE TASSEL FARM: $6,000 · OtherBLUE TASSEL FARMST SAVIOURS PARISH: $1,000 · OtherST SAVIOURS PARISHBartholomew County Society for the Disabled Inc: $1,000 · OtherBartholomew County Society fo…THRIVE ALLIANCE INC: $1,000 · OtherTHRIVE ALLIANCE INC+2 more: $300 · OtherINDIANA SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC: $6,000 · Recreation & SportsINDIANA SP…LINCOLN CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY CENTER: $4,000 · Community ImprovementFOUNDATION FOR YOUTH OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC: $1,000 · Youth DevelopmentHousing Partnerships Inc: $1,000 · Housing & ShelterTHE ARC OF INDIANA FOUNDATION INC: $300 · Employment
Human Services$34,070Other$16,300Recreation & Sports$6,000Community Improvement$4,000Youth Development$1,000Housing & Shelter$1,000Employment$300

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE ARC OF INDIANA INC: $20,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ARC OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY: $12,370 over 5y, 6.0% of budgetLOCAL SOLUTIONS: $7,000 over 5y, 7.3% of budgetBLUE TASSEL FARM: $6,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetINDIANA SPECIAL OLYMPICS INC: $6,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLINCOLN CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY CENTER: $4,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetDEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR YOUTH OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHousing Partnerships Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE ARC OF INDIANA FOUNDATION INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOUR HOSPICE OF SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRETT SYNDROME RESEARCH TRUST INC: $100 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.

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.

Clarence E Custer and…Centra Foundation IncColumbus Regional Hos…Elizabeth Ruddick Nug…United Way of Barthol…Heritage Fund - the C…Lilly Endowment IncDuke Energy FoundationFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Clarence E Custer and Inez R CusterIN15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Clarence E Custer and Inez R Custer · Centra Foundation Inc · Columbus Regional Hospital Foundation Inc · Elizabeth Ruddick Nugent Foundation · United Way of Bartholomew County Inc · Heritage Fund - the Community Foundation of Bartholomew County Inc · Lilly Endowment Inc · Duke Energy Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 The Bradford Todd Fleck Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Bradford Todd Fleck Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%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
    1get 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Bradford Todd Fleck Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Bradford Todd Fleck Foundation 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 16 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 Bradford Todd Fleck’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