Skip to content
The Hubert a and Gladys C Estabrook Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

The Hubert a and Gladys C Estabrook Charitable Trust

Its FY2026 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$3k
Granted FY2026still arriving
1
Grants FY2026still arriving
1
States reached
$3k
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.

Crime & Legal$849kPublic Benefit$178kEducation$171kHealth$41kHuman Services$40kArts & Culture$18kCivil Rights$6k
02FY2026 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$997k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PRESCHOOL PROMISE$2,500
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 (FY17–26) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $46k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF LAW: $30k → 16%CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $43k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $30k → 16%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: $40k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF LAW: $30k → 16%DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: $40k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF LAW: $30k → 16%DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $17k → 14%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: $30k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF LAW: $15k → 16%THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $16k → 14%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: $28k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF LAW: $15k → 16%THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $16k → 14%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: $25k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $31k → 16%THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION: $14k → 14%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $29k → 16%THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%SINCLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $11k → 14%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $18k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $29k → 16%THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND: $10k → 17%THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $12k → 15%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $29k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $29k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $25k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $25k → 16%CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR FOUNDATION: $20k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $25k → 16%FRIENDS TO THE INDIGENT: $13k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON: $36k → 14%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $15k → 15%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.
$1.2M · 15 repeat orgs$58k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2026, 15 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
6

Total granted

$1.2M
$55k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+4%
+30%

Still filing today

47%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25’26
EducationCrime & LegalPhilanthropyPublic BenefitOther
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

  • LA
    LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND
    8× · 2017–2025 · $80k · revenue +134%
  • TO
    THE OHIO CENTER FOR LAW RELATED EDUCATION
    4× · 2017–2020 · $40k · revenue +0%
  • UO
    University of Dayton
    2× · 2022–2023 · $40k · revenue +4%

Funded once

  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +3%
  • CS
    CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +4%
  • LA
    Law and Leadership Institute LLCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $8k · revenue +30%
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
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association

To promote the rule of law and the legal profession by supporting, empowering and celebrating our members and the community.

Community Improvement
2
Cincinnati Bar Association

To promote professional excellence, foster justice, serve our members and educate the public.

—
3
Cleveland Leadership Center

The mission of cleveland leadership center (the organization) is to build a continuum of civic leaders committed to our community's excellence by serving as a catalyst for civic engagement. the organization achieves its mission by…

Education
4
Columbus Bar Foundation

The columbus bar foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization and is classified as a 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(a)(vi) public charity that, in partnership with the columbus bar association, is committed to promoting: access to justice by all…

Philanthropy
5
American Law Institute

The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…

Crime & Legal
6
Csu Law Alumni Association

The mission is to provide continuing legal education to the almuni association's members, dissmination of information to members of the legal profession, and provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and developments. in addition, the…

Education
7
Ohio State Bar Association

The ohio state bar association (the "association") is an unincorporated voluntary non-profit organization. the association was formed to promote justice and advance the interests of the legal profession.

—
8
Cincinnati Bar Foundation

Promoting justice and changing lives through the law with the desire to serve the legal profession, the justice system and the Greater Cincinnati community. The Cincinnati Bar Foundation concentrates grant-making efforts in the following…

Crime & Legal
9
Colorado Campaign for Inclusive Excellence

The mission of the center for legal inclusiveness (cli) is to advance diversity in the legal profession by actively educating and supporting private and public sector legal organizations in their individual campaigns to create cultures of…

Civil Rights
10
Utah Center for Legal Inclusion

Advance fairness, opportunity, and inclusion in the legal profession.

Civil Rights
11
Justice League

The mission of Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center (OCVJC) is to ensure that the constitutional and statutory rights of Ohio crime victims are protected and enforced in state and federal jurisdictions in all 88 Ohio counties. To fulfill this…

Crime & Legal
12
League of Women Voters of Ohio

The league of women voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Ohio Center for Law Related Education; the most unlike its peers is Christian Trial Lawyers Association. 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, 2017–2026.

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. 14 of the 22 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
11/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW: $225,250 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAWTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW: $173,000 · OtherTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAWTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $145,000 · OtherTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITYCAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: $135,000 · OtherCAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWUNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF LAW: $120,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF LAWTHE DAYTON BAR FOUNDATION: $96,000 · OtherTHE DAYTON BAR FOUNDATIONLEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND: $80,000 · OtherLEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELANDTHE OHIO CENTER FOR LAW RELATED EDUCATION: $40,000 · OtherFRIENDS TO THE INDIGENT: $40,000 · OtherSINCLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $39,000 · Other+2 more: $17,250 · OtherCLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR FOUNDATION: $85,000 · Crime & LegalPRO BONO PARTNERSHIP OF OHIO: $12,500 · Crime & Legal+1 more: $500 · Crime & LegalUniversity of Dayton: $39,500 · EducationCLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationLaw and Leadership Institute LLC: $7,500 · EducationTHE CITY CLUB OF CLEVELAND: $5,000 · EducationPRESCHOOL PROMISE INC: $2,500 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $30,000 · PhilanthropyVeterans Consortium Pro Bono Program: $2,000 · Public Benefit
Other$1,110,500Crime & Legal$98,000Education$64,500Philanthropy$30,000Public Benefit$2,000

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 DAYTON BAR FOUNDATION: $96,000 over 7y, 28% of budgetCLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR FOUNDATION: $85,000 over 8y, 5.7% of budgetLEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND: $80,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetTHE OHIO CENTER FOR LAW RELATED EDUCATION: $40,000 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetUniversity of Dayton: $39,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPRO BONO PARTNERSHIP OF OHIO: $12,500 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetUNITED REHABILITATION SERVICES OF GREATER DAYTON: $11,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLaw and Leadership Institute LLC: $7,500 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetTHE CITY CLUB OF CLEVELAND: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetVeterans Consortium Pro Bono Program: $2,000 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 DAYTON BAR FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF CLEVELAND ↗
  • Who funds THE OHIO CENTER FOR LAW RELATED EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds University of Dayton ↗
  • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds PRO BONO PARTNERSHIP OF OHIO ↗
  • Who funds UNITED REHABILITATION SERVICES OF GREATER DAYTON ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Law and Leadership Institute LLC ↗
  • Who funds THE CITY CLUB OF CLEVELAND ↗
  • Who funds PRESCHOOL PROMISE INC ↗
  • Who funds Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTIAN TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION ↗

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.

Ohio State Bar Founda…The Dayton FoundationAmerican Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Ohio State Bar FoundationOH13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ohio State Bar Foundation · The Dayton Foundation · 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 Hubert a and Gladys C Estabrook Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Hubert a and Gladys C Estabrook Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–30%
    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 22 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 2026, released 2026. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Hubert a and Gladys C Estabrook’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