Skip to content
Hannay Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Hannay Charitable Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$72k
Granted FY2023
8
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$36k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Education$87kCommunity Improvement$70kArts & Culture$66kAnimals$21kCivil Rights$10kHuman Services$5kOther$0
02FY2023 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k4 grants · $4k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $68k
$10,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Ohio History Connection$36,000
YSU FOUNDATION$12,082
Youngstown Rotary Foundation Inc$10,000
MAHONING VALLEY SOJOURN TO THE PAST$10,000
ANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO$1,000
Angels for Animals$1,000
ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE$1,000
NEW VOCATIONS$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%NEW VOCATIONS RACEHORSE ADOPTION PROGRAM: $1k → 10%Ohio History Connection: $36k → 15%ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $1k → 16%Compass for Sojourner House: $10k → 19%NEW VOCATIONS: $1k → 15%NEW VOCATIONS RACEHORSE ADOPTION PROGRAM: $1k → 10%ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $1k → 16%SMARTS: $75k → 19%NEW VOCATIONS: $1k → 15%NEW VOCATIONS RACEHORSE ADOPTION PROGRAM: $1k → 10%ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $1k → 16%SMARTS: $75k → 19%NEW VOCATIONS: $1k → 15%ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $2k → 16%SOJOURN TO THE PAST: $20k → 19%ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $1k → 16%MAHONING VALLEY SOJOURN TO THE PAST: $10k → 19%ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $1k → 16%ANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO: $1k → 19%ANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO: $1k → 19%ANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO: $1k → 19%ANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO: $1k → 19%ANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO: $1k → 19%Angels for Animals: $1k → 19%Angels for Animals: $1k → 19%BEATITUDE HOUSE: $5k → 19%Angels for Animals: $1k → 19%Youngstown Rotary Foundation Inc: $35k → 19%Youngstown Rotary Foundation Inc: $10k → 19%Youngstown Rotary Foundation Inc: $5k → 19%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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$221k · 6 repeat orgs$113k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +104% since the first grant, against +71% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2023, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
4

Total granted

$221k
$55k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+104%
+71%

Still filing today

83%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 19% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $58k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
AnimalsCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureCivil RightsOther
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

  • AW
    ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE
    6× · 2017–2023 · $7k · revenue +140%
  • NV
    NEW VOCATIONS RACEHORSE ADOPTION
    6× · 2017–2023 · $6k · revenue +193%
  • AC
    ANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO INC
    5× · 2017–2023 · $5k · revenue +96%

Funded once

  • ST
    SOJOURN TO THE PAST
    one grant, 2022 · $20k
  • YC
    YOUNGSTOWN CITYSCAPE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $20k · revenue +71%
  • CF
    Compass for Sojourner House
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
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
Humane Society of the Ohio Valley

To provide protection and humane care of animals through shelters, rescue services, and community education.

Animals
2
Humane Society of Sandusky County

Rescue and adopt domestic animals. Low cost spay and neuter programs. Prevent animal abuse.

Animals
3
Wayne County Humane Society

Finding committed, permanent homes for companion animals in our community; measurably reducing companion animal overpopulation; educating and promoting humane values.

Animals
4
Cincinnati Animal Care Humane Society

We meet the immediate needs of animals in our community through individualized care, life saving solutions, and temporary shelter en-route to a safe, compatible home. we envision a community where all animals are valued, protected and have…

Animals
5
Jefferson County Humane Society

Animal welfare and protection in jefferson county, ohio including the employment of humane officers to investigate abuse and neglect of animals. oversee care and adoption of homeless animals housed at the jefferson county animal shelter.…

Animals
6
Toledo Humane Society

Prevention/treatment of cruelty to animals

Animals
7
Humane Society of Cambria County

Animal care and adoption

Animals
8
Tri County Animal Protection League

Prevention of cruelty to animals, releive suffering among animals, extend humane education and maintain an animal shelter.

—
9
Shelter Outreach Services of Ohio

Improve the quality of life of shelter animals and companion animals of low income families in the greater columbus area by providing affordable vererinary care and to help reduce the homeless pet population through spay/neuter programs.

Animals
10
White River Humane Society Inc

Pick up and board stray domestic animals until they can be reclaimed, adopted, or put to sleep. includes upkeep of truck, kennel, medicine, etc. for animals. public educational programs concerning animals.

Animals
11
Ashtabula County Humane Society

To enforce laws preventing cruelty to animals and to provide affective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

Animals
12
Stop the Suffering Rescue

Stop the suffering exists for the purpose of rescuing and transporting dogs and cats from rural shelters and areas with significant pet overpopulation.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Animal Charity of Ohio Inc; the most unlike its peers is Youngstown Rotary Foundation Ima 7635002558. 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

9 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. 9 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SMARTS: $150,000 · OtherSMARTSSOJOURN TO THE PAST: $20,000 · OtherSOJOURN TO THE PASTYSU FOUNDATION: $12,082 · OtherYSU FOUNDATIONCompass for Sojourner House: $10,000 · Other+1 more: $5,000 · OtherYOUNGSTOWN ROTARY FOUNDATION IMA 7635002558: $50,000 · Community ImprovementYOUNGSTOWN ROTARY FOUND…YOUNGSTOWN CITYSCAPE INC: $20,000 · Community ImprovementYOUNGSTOWN CITYSCAPE IN…OHIO HISTORY CONNECTION: $36,000 · Arts & CultureOHIO HISTORY…ANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $7,000 · AnimalsNEW VOCATIONS RACEHORSE ADOPTION: $6,000 · AnimalsANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO INC: $5,000 · AnimalsANGELS FOR ANIMALS INC: $3,000 · AnimalsMAHONING VALLEY SOJOURN TO THE PAST: $10,000 · Civil Rights
Other$197,082Community Improvement$70,000Arts & Culture$36,000Animals$21,000Civil Rights$10,000

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 budgetYOUNGSTOWN ROTARY FOUNDATION IMA 7635002558: $50,000 over 3y, 27% of budgetOHIO HISTORY CONNECTION: $36,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetYOUNGSTOWN CITYSCAPE INC: $20,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetMAHONING VALLEY SOJOURN TO THE PAST: $10,000 over 1y, 6.7% of budgetANIMAL WELFARE LEAGUE: $7,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetNEW VOCATIONS RACEHORSE ADOPTION: $6,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetBEATITUDE HOUSE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetANIMAL CHARITY OF OHIO INC: $5,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetANGELS FOR ANIMALS INC: $3,000 over 3y, 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.

Premier Bank Foundati…Community Foundation …Youngstown Fdn GeneralNetwork for GoodVanguard Charitable E…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Premier Bank FoundationOH21.9× affinity8 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Premier Bank Foundation · Community Foundation of the Mahoning Valley · Youngstown Fdn General · Network for Good · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Hannay Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hannay Charitable Foundation. 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%10%20%30%40%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 · 0–40%
    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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Hannay’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