Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Nelson and Charleen Kemp Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$213k
Granted FY2025still arriving
27
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$202kPublic Benefit$190kEducation$134kHuman Services$133kHealth$95kPublic Safety & Disaster$89kReligion$88kCommunity Improvement$79kOther$0
02FY2025 · 27 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k20 grants · $94k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $119k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF WINFIELD -WINFIELD PASTIME THEATRE$30,000
CITY OF WINFIELD MAIN STREET$30,000
CITY OF WINFIELD -DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION$15,000
BIG OAK RANCH$12,000
HOLY SPIRIT CATHOLIC CHURCH$12,000
CITY OF WINFIELD - RECYCLING PROJECT$10,000
FAYETTE COUNTRY SCHOOL DISTRICT - HUBBERTVILLE SCHOOL$10,000
Individual grant recipient$8,000
BACKPACKS AND BEYOND$8,000
ELDRIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT$8,000
CITY OF WINFIELD - WINFIELD PARK AND RECREATION - SENIOR CITIZEN PROGAM$5,000
CITY OF WINFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT$5,000
CITY OF WINFIELD - PUBLIC LIBRARY$5,000
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF ALABAMA FOUNDATION$5,000
MARION COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY$5,000
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 (FY20–25, $84k) 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%BIG OAK RANCH: $15k → 13%BIG OAK RANCH: $15k → 13%BIG OAK RANCH: $15k → 13%BIG OAK RANCH: $15k → 13%BIG OAK RANCH: $12k → 13%BIG OAK RANCH: $12k → 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.

88%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 34 repeat orgs$156k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +44% since the first grant, against +1% for those funded once.

34 repeat relationships: 18 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

34
10

Total granted

$1.1M
$63k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
+1%

Still filing today

15%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 56% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $93k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesAnimalsHealthArts & CultureReligionCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • BO
    BIG OAK RANCH INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $84k · revenue +57%
  • HI
    HAND IN PAW INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $24k · revenue +91%
  • S
    SMILE-A-MILE
    6× · 2020–2025 · $24k · revenue +44%

Funded once

  • WR
    WINFIELD RECYCLING PROJECT
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
  • SF
    SIXTY FEET INC
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +1%
  • WB
    Will Bright Foundation Inc
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +6%
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
Clearview Recovery Inc

Clearview recovery, inc. strives to be identified as a premier provider of client driven substance abuse services. it is committed to empowering and treating all clients in an individualized, effective, and responsible manner. working with…

Health
2
SafePath Children's Advocacy Center Inc

SafePath's mission is to reduce the trauma to children and their families by offering a comprehensive, professional and child-friendly approach to allegations of child abuse.

—
3
Sunlight Children's Services Inc

To protect and nurture children at risk by developing, supporting, serving, and protecting the interests of children.

—
4
Broadway House Inc

Probide a safe and sober living space for individuals recovering from substance abuse.

Health
5
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Manitowoc County Inc

To provide children facing adversity with strong, enduring, professionally supported one on one relationships that change their lives for the better, forever.

—
6
Brighthouse Inc

Shelter and support to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.

Human Services
7
Wichita Area Sexual Assault Center Inc

Wichita area sexual assault center works with individuals and communities through comprehensive services and education to create a culture of intolerance for sexual violence and an atmosphere of healing for those impacted by it.

Health
8
Brigid Collins House

Our mission is to strengthen community health and resilience by providing comprehensive support to children and their families. our vision is a thriving community where no child suffers.

Human Services
9
The Bridge Inc

To provide treatment and rehabilitative services for juveniles and adults in alabama through contracts primarily with the alabama department of youth services and the alabama department of mental health.

Health
10
Bright Strides Inc

To contribute to the emotional, physical and psychological betterment of mankind by integrating equine assisted psychotherapy, equine assisted learning and related activities with art and other non-traditional therapies to create a…

Health
11
Bright Tomorrows

Bright tomorrows provides crisis intervention, child abuse interview, and mental health counseling and assessment services for children.

—
12
Wills Place Inc

We are a recovery resource center and sober living/recovery house. will's place is designed to accommodate men who have been through primary treatment and are looking for a sober living environment as they progress in their recovery.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Safeplace Inc; the most unlike its peers is Winfield Chamber of Commerce. 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 53 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF WINFIELD MAIN STREET: $175,000 · OtherCITY OF WINFIELD MAIN STREETWINFIELD PASTIME THEATRE: $140,000 · OtherWINFIELD PASTIME THEATREHOLY SPIRIT CATHOLIC CHURCH: $70,000 · OtherHOLY SPIRIT CATHOLIC CHURCHHUBBERTVILLE SCHOOLS: $50,000 · OtherELDRIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: $48,000 · OtherCITY OF WINFIELD: $47,000 · OtherBACKPACKS AND BEYOND: $43,000 · Other+39 more: $537,000 · Other+39 moreBIG OAK RANCH INC: $84,000 · Human ServicesHAND IN PAW INC: $24,000 · AnimalsSMILE-A-MILE: $24,000 · HealthSTUDIO BY THE TRACKS INC: $12,000 · Arts & CultureSIXTY FEET INC: $5,000 · InternationalWill Bright Foundation Inc: $5,000 · ReligionWINFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $3,000 · Community Improvement
Other$1,110,000Human Services$84,000Animals$24,000Health$24,000Arts & Culture$12,000International$5,000Religion$5,000Community Improvement$3,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBIG OAK RANCH INC: $84,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetHAND IN PAW INC: $24,000 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetSMILE-A-MILE: $24,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetSTUDIO BY THE TRACKS INC: $12,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetSAFEPLACE INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSIXTY FEET INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetWill Bright Foundation Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% 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 BIG OAK RANCH INC ↗
  • Who funds HAND IN PAW INC ↗
  • Who funds SMILE-A-MILE ↗
  • Who funds STUDIO BY THE TRACKS INC ↗
  • Who funds SAFEPLACE INC ↗
  • Who funds SIXTY FEET 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.

Hill Crest Foundation IncAL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hill Crest Foundation Inc · The Daniel Foundation of Alabama · Alabama Power Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn 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 The Nelson and Charleen Kemp Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Nelson and Charleen Kemp 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–20%
    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 53 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 Nelson and Charleen Kemp’s filings →

    More from the funding graph