Skip to content
Emma M Kelly Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Emma M Kelly Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$16k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$5k
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 2025.

Food & Nutrition$30kInternational$30kHealth$26kHousing & Shelter$9kHuman Services$7kReligion$500
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$84k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Rain for the Sahal & Sahara$5,000
Sustainable Harvest Int'l$5,000
Hospice Help Foundation$2,500
The Webster House$1,500
NH-VT Palliative Services$1,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–25, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 39% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%The Webster House: $2k → 7%Grafton County Senior Citizens Council: $1k → 10%The Webster House: $1k → 7%Grafton County Senior Citizens Council: $1k → 10%The Webster House: $1k → 7%Spark Community Center: $500 → 10%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$95k · 8 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$95k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+43%
+80%

Still filing today

100%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthEnvironmentHousing & 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

  • SH
    Sustainable Harvest International
    6× · 2020–2025 · $30k · revenue +11%
  • HH
    HOSPICE HELP FOUNDATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $15k · revenue +43%
  • NP
    NH-VT PALLIATIVE SERVICES
    5× · 2020–2025 · $8k · revenue +99%

Funded once

  • BH
    BRIGID'S HOUSE OF HOPE
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -19%
  • UV
    Upper Valley Hostel Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $500 · revenue +28%
  • 1C
    1st Congregational Church
    one grant, 2020 · $500
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
HospiceCare in the Berkshires Inc

Organized to provide hospice and palliative care services to residents of the local Berkshire County community.

Human Services
2
Shepherd Home Inc

To provide compassionate comfort care to members of our community with life-limiting illnesses, in a way that cherishes the dignity of each individual and meets their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs.

Human Services
3
Northeast Kingdom Council on Aging Inc

We support people age 60 and older persons with disabilities in their efforts to remain active healthy, financially secure, and in control of their own lives. The Agency connects people and the services they they need to live independently…

Human Services
4
Harbor Homes Inc

Harbor Care's mission is to provide vital services, including housing and healthcare to all in our communities needing assistance. Our vision is one where everyone gets to live safe, stable, and healthy lives, filled with purpose, respect…

Housing & Shelter
5
Hospice of Franklin County Inc

To provide Hospice services regardless of a patients ability to pay.

Human Services
6
Harry Hynes Memorial Hospice Inc

To enable people to live with dignity and hope while coping with loss and terminal illness.

Human Services
7
Dartmouth Health Home Care Inc

We are dedicated to delivering outstanding home health and hospice services that enrich the lives of the people we serve.

—
8
Residents Council of Horizon House

To enhance the quality of life for all residents regardless of income in independent and supported living apartments

Human Services
9
Hospeace House Inc

To provide a warm, respectful environment meeting the physical, spiritual, and emotional needs of those facing the end of life as well as their families. To raise awareness of the hospice philosophy of care.

Human Services
10
Hope Harbor Home Inc

Hope Harbor Home strives to break the cycle of domestic and sexual violence in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

—
11
Granite Vna Inc

The Mission of Granite VNA, Inc. is we enhance dignity and independence for people delivering quality health care and promoting wellness in homes and communities through all stages of life.

Health
12
Hospice of North Idaho Inc

"With open hearts and expertise, we serve the seriously ill and those touched by loss." Our grief and loss program is provided to patients' loved ones, but is also available to other members of our community. Palliative services are…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hospice Help Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Nh-Vt Palliative Services. 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

12 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. 12 of the 13 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
10/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

RAIN FOR THE SAHEL AND SAHARA INC: $30,000 · Human ServicesRAIN FOR THE SAHEL AND SAHARA INCWEBSTER HOUSE: $3,901 · Human ServicesWEBSTER HOUSEGrafton County Senior Citizens Council Inc: $2,000 · Human ServicesGrafton County Senior Citizens Council I…+1 more: $500 · Human ServicesSustainable Harvest International: $30,000 · EnvironmentSustainable Harvest InternationalHOSPICE HELP FOUNDATION: $15,000 · HealthHOSPICE HELP FOUNDATIONNH-VT PALLIATIVE SERVICES: $7,500 · HealthNH-VT PALLIATIVE SERVICESSpeare Memorial Hospital: $2,500 · HealthSpeare Memorial Hospital+1 more: $500 · HealthBRIGID'S HOUSE OF HOPE: $5,000 · Other1st Congregational Church: $500 · OtherNeighbors In Need: $250 · OtherVISIONS FOR CREATIVE HOUSING SOLUTIONS: $4,000 · Housing & Shelter
Human Services$36,401Environment$30,000Health$25,500Other$5,750Housing & Shelter$4,000

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 budgetRAIN FOR THE SAHEL AND SAHARA INC: $30,000 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetSustainable Harvest International: $30,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetHOSPICE HELP FOUNDATION: $15,000 over 6y, 1.8% of budgetNH-VT PALLIATIVE SERVICES: $7,500 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetBRIGID'S HOUSE OF HOPE: $5,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetVISIONS FOR CREATIVE HOUSING SOLUTIONS: $4,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWEBSTER HOUSE: $3,901 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSpeare Memorial Hospital: $2,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGrafton County Senior Citizens Council Inc: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUpper Valley Hostel Inc: $500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSPARK COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNeighbors In Need: $250 over 1y, 0.8% 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.

New Hampshire Charita…Claremont Savings Ban…Cogswell Benevolent T…Lane & Elizabeth C Dw…Emily Landecker Found…Trust Uw Oleonda Jame…Madelaine G Vonweber …Granite United WayThe Couch Family Foun…Mascoma Bank Foundati…Agnes M Lindsay TrustFidelity Investments …
New Hampshire Charitable FoundationNH25.2× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation · Claremont Savings Bank Foundation · Cogswell Benevolent Trust · Lane & Elizabeth C Dwinell Fdn · Emily Landecker Foundation Inc · Trust Uw Oleonda Jameson · Madelaine G Vonweber Trust Todd Fahey & William Tucker Co-Trustees · Granite United Way · The Couch Family Foundation · Mascoma Bank Foundation · Agnes M Lindsay Trust · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Emma M Kelly Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Emma M Kelly Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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 13 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 Emma M Kelly’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