Skip to content
James E & Norma Kier Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

James E & Norma Kier Charitable 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.

$63k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$44k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$103kCommunity Improvement$90kYouth Development$49kHealth$43kArts & Culture$20kRecreation & Sports$20kHousing & Shelter$16kCrime & Legal$15kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $19k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $44k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$33k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PREVENT CHILD ABUSE UTAH$44,066
WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY$5,000
WEBER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUNDATION$5,000
TRINITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH$5,000
MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION$2,500
WASATCH DISTRICT PIPE BAND$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:

Its human-services grants (FY18–19, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%FAMILY PROMISE OF OGDEN: $3k → 9%FAMILY PROMISE OF OGDEN: $3k → 9%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.

35%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$160k · 11 repeat orgs$293k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
14

Total granted

$160k
$248k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
+45%

Still filing today

55%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 28% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementCrime & LegalHuman 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

  • WC
    Weber County School District Foundation
    8× · 2017–2025 · $78k · revenue +471%
  • MF
    MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF UTAH INC
    2× · 2021–2025 · $13k · revenue +4%
  • FP
    FAMILY PROMISE OF OGDEN
    2× · 2018–2019 · $6k · revenue +281%

Funded once

  • TC
    THE CHRISTMAS BOX INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2022 · $52k · revenue +11%
  • OC
    OGDEN CITY BUSINESS INFORMATION CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $38k
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB
    one grant, 2024 · $37k
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
Utah Geological Foundation
—
2
Autism Foundation of Utah
Health
3
House of Hope

Treating substance use disorders, rebuilding lives, strengthening families, and empowering women.

—
4
Utah Shakespeare Festival Foundation
Arts & Culture
5
Utah Motorsports Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Economic Development Corporation of Utah Foundation

To serve as a catalyst for quality job growth and increased capital investment in the state.

Community Improvement
7
Northern Utah Cancer Foundation
—
8
University of Utah Foundation

Provide support to the University of Utah Growth Capital Partners Foundation in Charitable, Educational and Scientific purposes.

Philanthropy
9
Utah Swat Inc
—
10
Shelter Providers of Utah

To help people experiencing or at risk of homelessness build new lives through construction, community engagement, and education.

—
11
Utah Housing Coalition Inc

The promotion of low-income housing within the state of utah.

—
12
Family Promise - Salt Lake

We help families experiencing homelessness find lasting independence and security.

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of Utah Inc; the most unlike its peers is Huntsville Utah Marathon. 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

15 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. 15 of the 27 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)
14/15
Grantees still filing
11/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PREVENT CHILD ABUSE UTAH: $44,066 · OtherPREVENT CHILD ABUSE UTAHOGDEN CITY BUSINESS INFORMATION CENTER: $38,300 · OtherOGDEN CITY BUSINESS INFORMATION CENTERBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB: $37,000 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBIndividual grant recipient: $16,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWEBER STATE UNIVERSITY: $15,340 · OtherWEBER STATE UNIVERSITYSWANSON FAMILY FOUNDATION: $15,000 · OtherSWANSON FAMILY FOUNDATIONCATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF UTAH: $12,821 · OtherMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF UTAH INC: $12,500 · OtherYOUTH IMPACT INCORPORATED: $12,000 · OtherST ANNE'S CENTER: $10,000 · OtherWEBERMORGAN CHILDREN'S JUSTICE CENTER: $10,000 · Other+5 more: $17,500 · Other+5 moreWeber County School District Foundation: $78,112 · EducationWeber County School Dist…OGDEN SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $20,000 · EducationOGDEN SCHOOL FOUNDATIONTHE CHRISTMAS BOX INTERNATIONAL: $51,600 · Community ImprovementTHE CHRISTMA…KEYSTONE RECOVERY CENTER INC: $22,100 · HealthWOMENS RETREAT HOUSE: $10,000 · Health+1 more: $500 · HealthOGDEN PIONEER DAYS FOUNDATION: $12,821 · Arts & CultureECCLES COMMUNITY ART CENTER: $2,250 · Arts & CultureFAMILY PROMISE OF OGDEN: $5,500 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF THE WEBER MORGAN CHILDREN'S JUSTICE CENTER: $5,000 · Crime & LegalENABLEUTAH INC: $4,500 · Employment
Other$241,027Education$98,112Community Improvement$51,600Health$32,600Arts & Culture$15,071Human Services$5,500Crime & Legal$5,000Employment$4,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWeber County School District Foundation: $78,112 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetTHE CHRISTMAS BOX INTERNATIONAL: $51,600 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetPREVENT CHILD ABUSE UTAH: $44,066 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetKEYSTONE RECOVERY CENTER INC: $22,100 over 1y, 46% of budgetOGDEN SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetOGDEN PIONEER DAYS FOUNDATION: $12,821 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF UTAH INC: $12,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetST ANNE'S CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWOMENS RETREAT HOUSE: $10,000 over 1y, 7.2% of budgetFAMILY PROMISE OF OGDEN: $5,500 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE WEBER MORGAN CHILDREN'S JUSTICE CENTER: $5,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetHuntsville Utah Marathon: $4,500 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetENABLEUTAH INC: $4,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetECCLES COMMUNITY ART CENTER: $2,250 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetHUNTSMAN CANCER FOUNDATION: $500 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Wadman FoundationDr Wc Swanson Family …The Alan and Jeanne H…George S and Dolores …Nebeker Family Founda…United Way of Norther…Willard L Eccles Char…Larry H Miller and Ga…Sorenson Legacy Found…The Community Foundat…Ascent Credit Union F…Beaver Creek Foundati…
Wadman FoundationUT22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Wadman Foundation · Dr Wc Swanson Family Foundation · The Alan and Jeanne Hall Foundation · George S and Dolores Dore Eccles Foundation · Nebeker Family Foundation · United Way of Northern Utah · Willard L Eccles Charitable Foundation · Larry H Miller and Gail Miller Family Foundation · Sorenson Legacy Foundation · The Community Foundation of Utah · Ascent Credit Union Foundation · Beaver Creek 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 James E & Norma Kier Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from James E & Norma Kier Charitable Foundation. 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%13%25%38%50%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 · 0–50%
    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 27 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 James E & Norma Kier’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