Skip to content

· Public charity

Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance

To preserve, interpret, promote and enhance utahs pioneer heritage.

$294k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$66k
Largest
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 2024.

Arts & Culture$1.1MRecreation & Sports$670kCommunity Improvement$125kEducation$110kPublic Benefit$102kHousing & Shelter$86kEnvironment$70kYouth Development$31kOther$0
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $14k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $154k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $126k
$19,800
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MT PLEASANT COMMUNITY$66,000
MONROE CITY$60,000
NORTH STAR VIDEO$49,917
HISTORIC NARYSVILLE MECANTILE$37,500
BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN$25,000
MT PLEASANT COMMUNITY$19,800
MORONI CITY$12,000
WAYNE COUNTY$10,000
FOUNTAIN GREEN DUP$9,200
PIUTE COUNTY$4,000
PANGUITCH DUP$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%NORTH STAR VIDEO: $50k → 8%KANAB CITY: $35k → 9%PANQUITCH CITY: $30k → 9%MONROE CITY: $35k → 10%WAYNE COUNTY: $25k → 12%KANAB JACOB HAMBLIN HERITAGE: $40k → 13%DISCOVERY ROAD TV SERIES: $29k → 8%KANAB CITY: $29k → 9%PANQUITCH CITY: $25k → 9%WAYNE COUNTY: $23k → 12%MARYSVALE TOWN: $20k → 15%KANE COUNTY: $25k → 9%GARFIELD COUNTY: $20k → 9%SALINA CITY: $25k → 10%WAYNE COUNTY: $20k → 12%NORTH STAR VIDEO: $24k → 15%KANAB CITY: $20k → 9%MT PLEASANT CDRA: $86k → 15%MT PLEASANT CITY: $67k → 15%MONROE CITY: $60k → 10%MT PLEASANT COMMUNITY: $66k → 15%MONROE CITY: $50k → 10%MOUNT PLEASANTCITY: $51k → 15%MARYSVALE HISTORIC SEVIER COUNTY: $47k → 10%MT PLEASANT CITY: $45k → 15%HISTORIC NARYSVILLE MECANTILE: $38k → 10%MT PLEASANT CITY: $37k → 15%BIG ROCK CANDY MOUNTAIN: $25k → 10%MT PLEASANT CITY: $37k → 15%SEVIER COUNTY: $22k → 10%MOUNT PLEASANT CITY: $30k → 15%TROPIC TOWN: $25k → 9%MT PLEASANT CITY: $30k → 15%TROPIC TOWN: $25k → 9%MT PLEASANT CITY: $28k → 15%MT PLEASANT CITY: $23k → 15%HERITAGE HWY 89: $21k → 15%EPHRAIM CITY: $30k → 15%EPHRAIM CITY: $25k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $45k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $45k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $40k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS: $30k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $30k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $30k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $25k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $25k → 15%SANPETE COUNTY: $23k → 15%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.2M · 15 repeat orgs$179k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +27% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
12

Total granted

$2.2M
$179k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+8%

Still filing today

7%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CultureEducationOther
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

  • MP
    MT PLEASANT CDRA
    8× · 2017–2024 · $594k
  • SC
    SANPETE COUNTY
    7× · 2018–2024 · $417k
  • MC
    MONROE CITY
    5× · 2017–2024 · $216k

Funded once

  • MC
    MONROE CITY
    one grant, 2020 · $35k
  • GC
    GARFIELD COUNTY
    one grant, 2019 · $30k
  • KC
    KANAB CITY
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
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

4 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. 4 of the 27 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)
4/4
Grantees still filing
3/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MT PLEASANT CDRA: $593,501 · OtherMT PLEASANT CDRASANPETE COUNTY: $416,781 · OtherSANPETE COUNTYMONROE CITY: $216,212 · OtherMONROE CITYNORTH STAR VIDEO: $198,133 · OtherNORTH STAR VIDEOWAYNE COUNTY: $175,000 · OtherWAYNE COUNTYKANAB JACOB HAMBLIN HERITAGE: $170,500 · OtherKANAB JACOB HAMBLIN HERITAGE+17 more: $510,720 · Other+17 moreUTAH HERITAGE HIGHWAY 89 ALLIANCE: $50,869 · Arts & CultureTHE CASINO STAR THEATER FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Arts & CultureGranary Art Center: $12,500 · Arts & CultureWASATCH ACADEMY: $15,000 · Education
Other$2,280,847Arts & Culture$83,369Education$15,000

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 budgetUTAH HERITAGE HIGHWAY 89 ALLIANCE: $50,869 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetTHE CASINO STAR THEATER FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 9.0% of budgetWASATCH ACADEMY: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGranary Art Center: $12,500 over 1y, 9.2% 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.

  • Who funds UTAH HERITAGE HIGHWAY 89 ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds THE CASINO STAR THEATER FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds WASATCH ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds Granary Art Center ↗

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.

Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA1.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%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 · 0–40%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance?

    Find your warmest path to Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 27 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance’s filings →

    More from the funding graph