Skip to content
Foundation Dossiers

Pennsylvania · Private foundation

Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation

Its FY2017 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.1M
Granted FY2017
1
Grants FY2017
Read the full brief

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation’s FY2017 grant dollars went to Akron Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2017 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it.

Median grant, FY2017
$1,086,924
Largest grant, FY2017
$1,086,924
States reached, FY2017
1
Applications
Preselected organizations only
Per its most recent filing; check its own site

Top grantees

Largest grants in FY2017.

AKRON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$1,086,924

Compare Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation with peer funders

About Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation

How much does Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation give?
Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation reported 1 grants totaling $1,086,924 in its FY2017 IRS filing.
What does Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation fund?
By grant dollars, its largest causes are Philanthropy (100%).
Does Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation accept unsolicited applications?
Its most recent filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and does not take unsolicited requests. Check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
Where is Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation based?
Laura Schrank Harkey & William Hudson Harkey Foundation is based in PA.

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 1 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

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