Skip to content
The Earl and Anna Broady Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Earl and Anna Broady 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.

$1.7M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$680k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Education$4.6MYouth Development$1.5MHuman Services$1.5MInternational$1.1MArts & Culture$250kHousing & Shelter$118kCommunity Improvement$10k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $50k–250k8 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+1 grant · $680k
$100,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE PINEY WOODS COUNTRY LIFE SCHOOL$680,000
THE BIDDY MASON CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$205,000
BRIDGE2RWANDA$200,000
BECAUSE YOU MATTER$145,000
VICTORY PRODUCTION$100,000
AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND$100,000
THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP$100,000
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH$100,000
ELIZABETH HOUSE$100,000
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 (FY18–25, $1.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 90% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%RUNNING STRONG FOR AMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH: $75k → 6%RUNNING STRONG FOR AMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH: $50k → 6%THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP: $125k → 17%RUNNING STRONG FOR AMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH: $50k → 6%THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP: $100k → 17%THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP: $100k → 17%THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP: $100k → 17%THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP: $100k → 17%THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP: $100k → 17%THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP: $100k → 17%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $4k → 10%HILLSIDES: $30k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $145k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $145k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $145k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $145k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $90k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $45k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $45k → 14%BECAUSE YOU MATTER: $30k → 14%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10M · 18 repeat orgs$430k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +134% since the first grant, against +18% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
8

Total granted

$10M
$430k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+134%
+18%

Still filing today

67%
50%

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
EducationHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentHealthInternationalHousing & 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

  • TB
    The Biddy Mason Charitable Foundation
    7× · 2019–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +291% · 81% of their budget
  • PW
    Piney Woods School
    3× · 2022–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +12%
  • BI
    BRIDGE2RWANDA INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +48%

Funded once

  • LD
    LA DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES
    one grant, 2018 · $200k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE
    one grant, 2018 · $60k · revenue -10%
  • PO
    Pacific Oaks Education Corporation
    one grant, 2018 · $60k · revenue +18%
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
Ie New York College

(see schedule o)

Education
2
President and Trustees of Bates College

Bates is a college of the liberal arts and sciences, and is a coeducational, nonsectarian, residential college with special commitments to academic rigor, and to assuring in all of its efforts the dignity of each individual, and access to…

Education
3
Loyola University

Loyola University New Orleans, a Jesuit and Catholic institution of higher education, welcomes students of diverse backgrounds and prepares them to lead meaningful lives with and for others; to pursue truth, wisdom, and virtue; and to work…

Education
4
Albright College

As a diverse community of learners, we cultivate integrity, curiosity, connection and resilience.

Education
5
Bosque School

To create transformative learning experiences that empower a diverse community of students to lead lives of intellectual curiosity, personal integrity, and compassionate contribution to a more just world.

Education
6
Lindenwood Education System

Real experience. real success.enhancing lives through quality education and professional preparatory experiences. see schedule o.values:we put our students first. we have an unwavering commitment to providing the highest quality education,…

Education
7
Columbia College Chicago

The organization's mission is to educate students for creative occupations in diverse fields of arts and media.

Education
8
The Oaks School

In an atmosphere of mutual respect and responsibility, the oaks school prepares students to meet the world with the combined wisdom of an intelligent mind, a skilled hand, and a compassionate heart.

Education
9
Lehigh University

The university's goal in the coming decade is to advance learning through the integration of teaching, research and service to others. the core of this goal is to prepare graduates to engage with the world and lead lives of meaning. to do…

Education
10
Fordham University

Fordham university, the jesuit university of new york, is committed to the discovery of wisdom and the transmission of learning, through research and through education of the highest quality. for more information, see schedule o.

Education
11
New York School of Interior Design

New york school of interior design provides the most innovative, immersive, and transformative interior design education in the world, demonstrating the impact of professionally designed interiors on the health, happiness, and well-being…

Education
12
University of Redlands

We welcome, educate, and empower a diverse community of learners for lives of meaning, impact, and joy.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Olive Crest; the most unlike its peers is Because You Matter. 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 26 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
14/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: $1,200,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGHELIZABETH HOUSE: $930,965 · OtherELIZABETH HOUSELA DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES: $200,000 · OtherLA DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY S…MORNINGSIDE HIGH MONARCHS ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $150,000 · OtherVICTORY PRODUCTIONS: $150,000 · Other+7 more: $231,625 · Other+7 morePiney Woods School: $1,330,000 · EducationPiney Woods SchoolAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $1,150,000 · EducationAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUN…+3 more: $160,932 · Education+3 moreThe Biddy Mason Charitable Foundation: $1,465,529 · Youth DevelopmentThe Biddy Mason Ch…HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $262,500 · Youth DevelopmentHOMEBOY INDUSTRIESBecause You Matter: $794,000 · Human ServicesBecause You MatterTHE TEAK FELLOWSHIP INC: $725,000 · Human ServicesTHE TEAK FELLOWSHI…AMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH RUNNING STRONG INC: $175,000 · Human ServicesAMERICAN INDIAN YO…+1 more: $30,000 · Human ServicesBRIDGE2RWANDA INC: $1,252,500 · InternationalBRIDGE2RWANDA…OLIVE CREST: $450,000 · HealthABODE COMMUNITIES: $107,500 · Housing & Shelter
Other$2,862,590Education$2,640,932Youth Development$1,728,029Human Services$1,724,000International$1,252,500Health$450,000Housing & Shelter$107,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetThe Biddy Mason Charitable Foundation: $1,465,529 over 7y, 81% of budgetPiney Woods School: $1,330,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetBRIDGE2RWANDA INC: $1,252,500 over 8y, 10% of budgetAMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND: $1,150,000 over 8y, 0.8% of budgetBecause You Matter: $794,000 over 8y, 90% of budgetTHE TEAK FELLOWSHIP INC: $725,000 over 7y, 2.8% of budgetOLIVE CREST: $450,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetHOMEBOY INDUSTRIES: $262,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH RUNNING STRONG INC: $175,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetMORNINGSIDE HIGH MONARCHS ALUMNI ASSOCIATION: $150,000 over 3y, 62% of budgetABODE COMMUNITIES: $107,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: $60,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPacific Oaks Education Corporation: $60,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetThe New School: $40,932 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHILLSIDES: $30,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDOOR OF HOPE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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 The Biddy Mason Charitable Foundation ↗
  • Who funds Piney Woods School ↗
  • Who funds BRIDGE2RWANDA INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND ↗
  • Who funds Because You Matter ↗
  • Who funds THE TEAK FELLOWSHIP INC ↗
  • Who funds OLIVE CREST ↗
  • Who funds HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN INDIAN YOUTH RUNNING STRONG INC ↗
  • Who funds MORNINGSIDE HIGH MONARCHS ALUMNI ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds ABODE COMMUNITIES ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE ↗
  • Who funds Pacific Oaks Education Corporation ↗
  • Who funds The New School ↗
  • Who funds HILLSIDES ↗
  • Who funds DOOR OF HOPE ↗

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 Ralph M Parsons F…California Community …Charities Aid Foundat…American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Ralph M Parsons FoundationCA13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ralph M Parsons Foundation · California Community Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Earl and Anna Broady Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Earl and Anna Broady Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 26 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 Earl and Anna Broady’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