Skip to content
Nyamekye Foundation Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Nyamekye Foundation Inc

To address inequities in the provision of housing and healthcare in underserved communities along with providing scholarships to deserving kids in these communities who have expressed a desire to further their academic standing

$17k
Granted FY2021
1
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2021.

Health$32kAnimals$29kReligion$9kInternational$5kEducation$3kArts & Culture$2kEnvironment$2kPublic Safety & Disaster$800
02FY2021 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $10,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $17,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $7,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$873k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROSWELL PARK ALLIANCE FOUNDATION$10,000
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, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BESTSELF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: $500 → 13%INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUFFALO: $1k → 13%INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUFFALO: $100 → 13%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$73k · 8 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2021, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$73k
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+66%
+248%

Still filing today

50%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21
InternationalHuman ServicesAnimalsReligionPhilanthropyHealthOther
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

  • SF
    SENSATIONAL FUN INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $15k · revenue +95%
  • PL
    PROJECT LEE MINISTRIES INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $2k · revenue +249%
  • TI
    THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUFFALO
    2× · 2018–2019 · $1k · revenue +66%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
  • CC
    CARIBBEAN CONNECTION
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
  • LT
    LET THERE BE LIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTBLI at diggraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $2k · revenue +248%
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
The Institute for Behavior Change Inc
Health
2
International Institute of Global Resilience Inc
International
3
Educational Leadership Institute Inc
Science & Tech
4
Behavioral Insights Institute
Education
5
Energy Medicine Institute Corp
Health
6
New Hope for Adopted International Kids

Help struggling families and children who have been adopted from international families in other countries work to adjust to their new life and bring some into other families

Human Services
7
Equiteam Support Services

Mental health treatment

Health
8
Interamerican Behavioral Health Services Inc
—
9
Ridin High Inc

Provide therapeutic services for handicapped children and adults.

Human Services
10
Mental Research Institute
—
11
Bridging Initiatives International

Provide holistic and integrated service that address the diverse needs of vulnerable individuals and families experiencing instability as the result of domestic violence and /or homelessness.

Human Services
12
Better Education Institute Inc
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Bestself Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Erie Mounted Division 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 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)
7/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LEGACY THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER INC: $29,000 · AnimalsLEGACY THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER INCROSWELL PARK ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: $16,000 · PhilanthropyROSWELL PARK ALLIANCE …BAIS LUBAVITCH INC: $6,600 · OtherBAIS LUBAVITCH INCUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON: $3,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONS…CARIBBEAN CONNECTION: $3,000 · OtherCARIBBEAN CONNECTIONPBS-TSC SCRUGGS - HESLIP FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 · OtherPBS-TSC SCRUGGS - HES…ERIE MOUNTED DIVISION INC: $800 · OtherSENSATIONAL FUN INC: $15,000 · HealthSENSATIONAL FUN INCLET THERE BE LIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTBLI at dig: $1,500 · InternationalGIRLS EDUCATION COLLABORATIVE INC: $1,000 · InternationalPROJECT LEE MINISTRIES INC: $2,000 · ReligionTHE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUFFALO: $1,100 · Human ServicesBESTSELF FOUNDATION INC: $500 · Human Services
Animals$29,000Philanthropy$16,000Other$15,400Health$15,000International$2,500Religion$2,000Human Services$1,600

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEGACY THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER INC: $29,000 over 2y, 87% of budgetROSWELL PARK ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: $16,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSENSATIONAL FUN INC: $15,000 over 2y, 6.0% of budgetPROJECT LEE MINISTRIES INC: $2,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUFFALO: $1,100 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetGIRLS EDUCATION COLLABORATIVE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBESTSELF FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

Community Foundation …Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo IncNY13.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Greater Buffalo Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Nyamekye Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nyamekye Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%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
    2report 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 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $500 of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2021, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Nyamekye’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