Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Haney Foundation

Its FY2022 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$6k
Granted FY2022
8
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it funds
0182% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2022.

Youth Development$4kHuman Services$4kPhilanthropy$2kEducation$2kHousing & Shelter$2kHealth$1kCivil Rights$1kReligion$725Other$0
02FY2022 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$800
Median grant
1
States reached
$23k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WESTMINISTER COLLEGE$1,200
BOY SCOUTS$1,100
Individual grant recipient$1,000
UNITED WAY$800
RODEF SHALOM CONGREGATION$600
DISABILITY OPTIONS NETWORK$500
CRAY HOUSE$500
Individual grant recipient$50
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 (FY22–22, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DISABILITY OPTIONS NETWORK: $500 → 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.

66%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14k · 9 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +102% since the first grant, against +48% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2022, 7 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
15

Total granted

$14k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+102%
+48%

Still filing today

22%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 33% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22
Civil RightsArts & CultureHealthEducationHuman ServicesEmploymentOther
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

  • LH
    LAUREL HIGHLANDS COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
    3× · 2020–2022 · $4k · revenue +17%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2020–2021 · $2k
  • UW
    UNITED WAY
    2× · 2020–2022 · $2k

Funded once

  • SH
    SHRINERS HOSPITAL
    one grant, 2021 · $650
  • NC
    NEW CASTLE LIBRARY
    one grant, 2020 · $500
  • PF
    PENN FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2020 · $300 · revenue +4%
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
American Law Institute

The institute's mission, as set out in its certificate of incorporation, is to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to…

Crime & Legal
2
Hillel At Washington University in St Louis

The mission of hillel at washington university in st louis is to be a catalyst for jewish life among college students in st louis. we connect students with one another and with jewish culture and traditions through service and social…

—
3
Delaware Valley University

See schedule o.we are inspired by the ideals of our founder who, in 1896, emphasized respect for all people and ideas, who honored knowledge with practice, progress and the common good. our historical commitment to experiential learning…

—
4
National Council of Jewish Women Incorporated

The national council of jewish women is a grassroots nonpartisan organization of volunteers and advocates who strive for social justice by improving the quality of life for women, children and families.

Community Improvement
5
Highmark Health

As the parent entity of a blended health organization, highmark health seeks to improve the health and well-being of the people and communities it serves by providing affordable, accessible and high-quality healthcare.

Health
6
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations

Joint Commission evaluates and accredits health care organizations and programs across the United States to ensure compliance with rigorous standards of quality and safety, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)…

Health
7
La Roche University

La roche university advances learning informed by ethical and service-oriented values, reflecting its catholic heritage and the charism of the sisters of divine providence.

Education
8
Webster University

Founded in 1915, webster is a private non-profit and global university that is committed to delivering high-quality learning experiences that transform students for global citizenship and individual excellence.

Education
9
Augustana College

Rooted in the liberal arts & sciences & lutheran expression of the christian faith, & is committed to offering a challenging education that develops qualities of mind, spirit, & body necessary for a rewarding life of leadership & service…

Education
10
Association of American Law Schools Inc

The association of american law schools' mission is to uphold and advance excellence in legal education.

Education
11
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

As the central community relations agency of the organized jewish community in our nation's capital, the jcrc of greater washington endeavors to foster a society based on freedom, justice and democratic pluralism for it is such a society…

Community Improvement
12
Jewish Senior Life

To enhance the quality of life, health, and well-being of jewish older adults, their families, and others in our community, consistent with the values and traditions of our jewish heritage.

Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Simon Wiesenthal Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Penn Foundation 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

8 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. 8 of the 30 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LAUREL HIGHLANDS COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $4,176 · OtherLAUREL HIGHLANDS COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICAIndividual grant recipient: $2,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientUNITED WAY: $1,800 · OtherUNITED WAYROTARY: $1,560 · OtherROTARYCOMMUNITY YMCA: $1,500 · OtherCOMMUNITY YMCACITY RESCUE MISSION: $1,300 · OtherCITY RESCUE MISSIONIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientSHRINERS HOSPITAL: $650 · OtherRODEF SHALOM CONGREGATION: $600 · Other+14 more: $3,115 · Other+14 moreWESTMINSTER COLLEGE: $1,200 · EducationDISABILITY OPTIONS NETWORK: $500 · Human ServicesSIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER INC: $400 · Arts & CulturePENN FOUNDATION INC: $300 · HealthANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $200 · Civil RightsAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE: $100 · Civil RightsLARK ENTERPRISES INC: $50 · Employment
Other$17,701Education$1,200Human Services$500Arts & Culture$400Health$300Civil Rights$300Employment$50

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLAUREL HIGHLANDS COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $4,176 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetWESTMINSTER COLLEGE: $1,200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDISABILITY OPTIONS NETWORK: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER INC: $400 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPENN FOUNDATION INC: $300 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLARK ENTERPRISES INC: $50 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.

  • Who funds LAUREL HIGHLANDS COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ↗
  • Who funds WESTMINSTER COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds DISABILITY OPTIONS NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PENN FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE ↗
  • Who funds LARK ENTERPRISES 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 The Haney Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Haney 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 30 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Haney’s filings →

    More from the funding graph