Skip to content

· Private foundation

Keeler-Matthews Charitable Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$25k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$3k
Largest
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.

Health$51kHuman Services$34kFood & Nutrition$32kHousing & Shelter$26kCrime & Legal$17kPublic Safety & Disaster$16kAnimals$14kPhilanthropy$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$751k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICORP SENIORS$3,000
Individual grant recipient$3,000
COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION$3,000
NEW EMERGENCY RESOURC CENTER$2,500
AMERICAN RED CROSS$2,000
PONCA CITY HUMANE SOCIETY$2,000
HOSPICE OF NO CENTRAL OK$2,000
PEACHTREE LANDING$1,800
DEARING HOUSE$1,800
PONCA VETERAN DAY PARADE$1,500
MARLANDS PLACE$1,000
UNITED WAY OF NORTH CENTRAL OK$900
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 (FY17–18, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%MARLANDS CHILDREN HOME: $2k → 14%MARLANDS CHILDRENS HOME: $2k → 14%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$196k · 24 repeat orgs$17k to everyone else

24 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
8

Total granted

$196k
$12k

Still filing today

38%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
Youth DevelopmentHealthAnimalsHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesEducationOther
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

  • DH
    Dearing House Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $17k · revenue +104%
  • CH
    COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION OF KAY COUNTY INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $14k · revenue +66%
  • HO
    HOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA
    6× · 2017–2022 · $11k · revenue +12%

Funded once

  • MR
    MEDICAL RESEARCH OF OK
    one grant, 2019 · $2k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2019 · $2k
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
Okmulgee County Homeless Shelter Inc

To promote the welfare of okmulgee county by providing temporary shelter and food for homeless and destitute persons

Human Services
2
Okmulgee County Humane Society

The Mission Statement for the Okmulgee County Humane Society is to enrich the lives of dogs and cats and provide support to the people who love them when in need - strengthen the overall human-animal bond.

Unclassified
3
Pug Rescue Owasso

Pug Rescue Owasso mission is to rescue abused, abandoned, homeless, unwanted , sick and injured pugs. we rehabilitate them medically and emotionally and place them into homes

Animals
4
Panhandle Services for Children

Provides mental health services, case management, and placement services and prevention and educaiton programs to youth and families in the oklahoma panhandle.

Housing & Shelter
5
Enid Community Clinic

To promote a healthy community, utilizing its resources and local volunteers to provide compassionate health care and other services to the medically under-served.

Health
6
Christian Home of Pecos

Christain Home

Crime & Legal
7
Northwest Arkansas Children's Shelter in Dba Everhope Arkansas Inc

To provide a safe have, high quality care, and hope for the future to chidren who have been abandoned, abused, or neglected.

Human Services
8
Oklahoma Paws Memphis Street Animal Rescue

To assist in the ongoing battle of pet overpopulation in Oklahoma by offering a no kill shelter environment, responsible adoption, medical aid, and community outreach. We also intend to provide sanctuary to companion animals who's people…

Animals
9
North Central Kansas Housing Opportunities Inc
Community Improvement
10
Pontotoc Animal Welfare Society

To provide an animal shelter, adoption services, and spay/neuter services to pontotoc county.

Animals
11
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa

Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa provides essential services that remove barriers, strengthen families, and promote healing when children need healthcare.

—
12
Dentists Donating Smiles to Oklahomans Inc

To restore the oral health of low-income, uninsured elderly and developmentally disabled oklahomans by providing free dental care to Oklahomans.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way of North Central Oklahoma Inc; the most unlike its peers is Dearing House 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

9 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. 9 of the 35 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW EMERGENCY RESOURCE CENTER: $19,600 · OtherNEW EMERGENCY RESOURCE CENTERAMERICAN RED CROSS: $15,600 · OtherAMERICAN RED CROSSPONCA CITY GARDEN COUNCIL: $10,500 · OtherPONCA CITY GARDEN COUNCILHOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: $10,500 · OtherHOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMAIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientAMERICORP SENIORS: $8,500 · OtherAMERICORP SENIORSPONCA CITY VETERAN PARADE: $8,000 · OtherPONCA CITY VETERAN PARADESALVATION ARMY: $6,900 · OtherHABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $6,800 · OtherHOSPICE OF NO CENTRAL OK: $6,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $6,000 · Other+17 more: $37,450 · Other+17 moreDearing House Inc: $16,800 · Youth DevelopmentCOMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION OF KAY COUNTY INC: $14,000 · HealthNORTHERN OKLAHOMA HUMANE SOCIETY: $12,500 · AnimalsPEACHTREE LANDING INC: $11,700 · Housing & ShelterUNITED WAY OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA INC: $4,900 · PhilanthropyMARLAND CHILDRENS HOME INC: $3,500 · Human ServicesChild Development Center Ponca City Inc: $3,350 · Education
Other$145,850Youth Development$16,800Health$14,000Animals$12,500Housing & Shelter$11,700Philanthropy$4,900Human Services$3,500Education$3,350

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDearing House Inc: $16,800 over 9y, 1.5% of budgetCOMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION OF KAY COUNTY INC: $14,000 over 7y, 2.8% of budgetNORTHERN OKLAHOMA HUMANE SOCIETY: $12,500 over 8y, 0.9% of budgetPEACHTREE LANDING INC: $11,700 over 8y, 1.0% of budgetHOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: $10,500 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA INC: $4,900 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetThe Mission: $4,500 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetMARLAND CHILDRENS HOME INC: $3,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetChild Development Center Ponca City Inc: $3,350 over 3y, 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 Dearing House Inc ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION OF KAY COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN OKLAHOMA HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds PEACHTREE LANDING INC ↗
  • Who funds HOSPICE OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF NORTH CENTRAL OKLAHOMA INC ↗
  • Who funds The Mission ↗
  • Who funds MARLAND CHILDRENS HOME INC ↗
  • Who funds Child Development Center Ponca City Inc ↗

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.

Evans Family FoundationOK17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Evans Family Foundation · Conocophillips Retirees Association Inc · Madalynne L Peel Foundation · Glenn W Peel Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Keeler-Matthews Charitable Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Keeler-Matthews Charitable Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 40%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →median 8%
  • United Way of North Central Oklahoma Inc: 8% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
4get 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 · 0–10%
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 35 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 Keeler-Matthews’ filings →

More from the funding graph