Skip to content
The Robert Worth Bradshaw Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

The Robert Worth Bradshaw Family Foundation Inc

$2k
Granted FY2026still arriving
2
Grants FY2026still arriving
2
States reached
$1k
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, FY2020 to 2023.

Arts & Culture$120kEducation$34kHuman Services$2kHealth$500
02FY2026 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,400
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HAITI EDUCATION FOUNDATION$1,400
TRINITY HOPE$740
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 (FY23–23, $250) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%MASONIC HOME OF GEORGIA: $250 → 12%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$153k · 3 repeat orgs$5k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +315% since the first grant, against +25% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2026, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2026 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
4

Total granted

$153k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+315%
+25%

Still filing today

67%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2026, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’26
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’26
InternationalArts & CultureEducationHealthPhilanthropyHuman ServicesOther
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

  • TH
    THE HOUSE OF THE TEMPLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOUNDAION INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $60k · revenue +315%
  • TS
    THE SCOTTISH RITE FOUNDATION SJ USA INC
    2× · 2020–2021 · $60k
  • SR
    SCOTTISH RITE FOUNDATION OF GAINC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $32k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • YS
    YAARAB Shriners
    one grant, 2020 · $2k · revenue +22%
  • GM
    Georgia Masonic Charities Foundation
    one grant, 2020 · $1k · revenue -98%
  • TS
    THE SHRINERS' HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN
    one grant, 2020 · $500 · revenue +25%
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
Shriners International

Fraternity with philanthropic mission of supporting shriners hopsital for children

—
2
Shriners International

Shriner's international is the supreme authority of the shrine temples in existence. the shrine is an international fraternity of 166,400 members who belong to 202 temples throughout the world. (continued on schedule o)the temples are…

—
3
Royal Arch Masons Children's Heart Foundation Inc
Health
4
Scottish Rite Foundation of Florida

To support the treatment of childhood language disorders in Florida

Philanthropy
5
Shriner's International

Fraternal Organization fostering brotherhood and mutual benefit amoung it members. Raising funds for Shriners Childrens payment of professional medical fees and medical travel.

Membership Benefit
6
Shriners International

Fraternity with a philanthropic mission.

—
7
Syrian Shriners

Shriners offers men and their families an opportunity to meet new friends who have similar interests. there are 191 shrine temples, or chapters, located in the united states, canada, mexico and the republic of panama. informal shrine clubs…

Membership Benefit
8
Shriners International Melha Shriners

Melha is a masonic-related fraternity with a philanthropic mission, including support of its affiliate's hospital by providing a satisfying endeavor to its members and the community.

—
9
Jerusalem Shriners

Fraternity with a philanthropic mission.

—
10
Tangier Shriners

Fraternity with a philanthropic mission.

—
11
Aahmes Shriners

Be the premier fraternal organization for men of good character.Provide attractive, quality programs and services for its members, their families and their friends in a spirit of fun, fellowship and social camaraderie.Foster…

—
12
Scottish Rite Foundation of Hawaii
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The House of the Temple Historic Preservation Foundaion Inc; the most unlike its peers is Haiti Education Foundation Inc. 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, 2017–2026.

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. 8 of the 9 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SCOTTISH RITE FOUNDATION SJ USA INC: $60,000 · OtherTHE SCOTTISH RITE FOUNDATION SJ USA INC+1 more: $1,500 · OtherTHE HOUSE OF THE TEMPLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOUNDAION INC: $60,350 · Arts & CultureTHE HOUSE OF THE TEMPLE HISTORIC PRESERVATI…SCOTTISH RITE FOUNDATION OF GAINC: $32,400 · PhilanthropySCOTTISH RITE FOUNDATIO…HAITI EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $1,400 · InternationalTRINITY HOPE INC: $740 · InternationalGeorgia Masonic Charities Foundation: $1,000 · EducationTHE SHRINERS' HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN: $500 · HealthMasonic Home of Georgia: $250 · Human Services
Other$61,500Arts & Culture$60,350Philanthropy$32,400International$2,140Education$1,000Health$500Human Services$250

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 budgetTHE HOUSE OF THE TEMPLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOUNDAION INC: $60,350 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetSCOTTISH RITE FOUNDATION OF GAINC: $32,400 over 2y, 7.2% of budgetYAARAB Shriners: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGeorgia Masonic Charities Foundation: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE SHRINERS' HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMasonic Home of Georgia: $250 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Free and Accepted Mas…
Free and Accepted Masons of Georgia Norcross Lodge 228GA13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Free and Accepted Masons of Georgia Norcross Lodge 228

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 Robert Worth Bradshaw Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Robert Worth Bradshaw Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 6%
  • The Shriners' Hospital for Children: 6% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
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.

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 9 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 Robert Worth Bradshaw Family’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