Skip to content

· Private foundation

Keith Henney Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$29k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Education$147kArts & Culture$36kRecreation & Sports$7kEnvironment$3kScience & Tech$2kHuman Services$644Other$0
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k5 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$2,965
Median grant
3
States reached
$644k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITY$10,187
CONWAY PUBLIC LIBRARY$10,095
BARNSTORMERS THEATRE$3,900
EATON CONSERVATION COMMISSION$2,965
TAMWORTH HISTORICAL SOCIETY$796
GIBSON CENTER FOR SENIOR SERVICES$644
TIN MOUNTAIN CONS CENTER INC$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 (FY25–25, $644) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%GIBSON CENTER FOR SENIOR SERVICES: $644 → 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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$170k · 10 repeat orgs$32k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +130% since the first grant, against +57% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
14

Total granted

$170k
$24k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+130%
+57%

Still filing today

10%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CultureHuman 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

  • CP
    CONWAY PUBLIC LIBRARY
    8× · 2018–2025 · $69k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    4× · 2022–2025 · $33k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    4× · 2018–2021 · $27k

Funded once

  • CU
    CARLETON UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2018 · $6k
  • CH
    CONWAY HISTORICAL SOCIETYgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $4k · revenue +174%
  • MW
    MT WASHINGTON OBSERVATORY
    one grant, 2022 · $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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 28 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)
7/7
Grantees still filing
4/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONWAY PUBLIC LIBRARY: $69,259 · OtherCONWAY PUBLIC LIBRARYIndividual grant recipient: $33,387 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: $26,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIREOKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY: $11,500 · OtherOKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITYIndividual grant recipient: $6,643 · Other+17 more: $34,677 · Other+17 moreLOVELL HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $12,950 · Arts & CultureLOVELL HIS…Barnstormers Theatre: $3,900 · Arts & CultureBarnstorme…BARTLETT HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $1,632 · Arts & CultureBARTLETT H…MADISON HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $1,000 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $130 · Arts & CultureGIBSON CENTER FOR SENIOR SERVICES INC: $644 · Human Services
Other$181,966Arts & Culture$19,612Human Services$644

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 budgetLOVELL HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $12,950 over 6y, 6.5% of budgetCONWAY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $4,000 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetBarnstormers Theatre: $3,900 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetBARTLETT HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $1,632 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetMADISON HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetGIBSON CENTER FOR SENIOR SERVICES INC: $644 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEATON VILLAGE PRESERVATION SOCIETY: $130 over 1y, 0.4% 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 LOVELL HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds CONWAY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds Barnstormers Theatre ↗
  • Who funds BARTLETT HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds MADISON HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds GIBSON CENTER FOR SENIOR SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds EATON VILLAGE PRESERVATION SOCIETY ↗

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.

The Robert and Dorothy Goldberg Charitable FoundationME13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Robert and Dorothy Goldberg Charitable Foundation · 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 Keith Henney Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Keith Henney Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 8%
  • Barnstormers Theatre: 8% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get 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 · 0–60%
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 28 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 Keith Henney’s filings →

More from the funding graph