Skip to content
Arthur H Webster Jr Endowment Fund at a glance

· Private foundation

Arthur H Webster Jr Endowment Fund

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$65k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$52k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$145kHuman Services$113kPublic Benefit$56kReligion$55kHealth$44kEducation$35kEnvironment$30kYouth Development$28kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $52k
$52,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SAGINAW ART MUSEUM$52,000
SAGINAW COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$12,540
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 (FY18–22, $75k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 87% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%OPERATION WARM: $10k → 6%MISSION IN THE CITY: $45k → 18%CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF SAGINAW CO: $20k → 18%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.

30%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$186k · 3 repeat orgs$434k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against +2% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
21

Total granted

$186k
$382k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+2%

Still filing today

33%
52%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $52k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthArts & CultureEnvironmentHousing & ShelterCrime & LegalOther
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

  • SC
    SAGINAW COMM FOUNDATION
    6× · 2018–2023 · $124k
  • RA
    READ ASSOC OF SAGINAW
    2× · 2019–2021 · $35k
  • SI
    SVRC Industries Inc
    3× · 2020–2022 · $27k · revenue +54%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • MI
    MISSION IN THE CITY
    one grant, 2022 · $45k · revenue -75% · 41% of their budget
  • OT
    OLD TOWN CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CENTER
    one grant, 2018 · $40k
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
Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County

Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County D/B/A Catholic Charities Washtenaw County provides diverse, holistic social services including adoption and pregnancy counseling, food and basic needs assistance, domestic and child abuse…

—
2
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
3
St Johns Community Center

to provide food and shelter for the homeless of Detroit

—
4
Lincoln Behavioral Services

To provide comprehensive outpatient mental health services to over 5400 individuals and their families in a consumer driven person centered delivery system. Approximately 15% of our staff members are our clients who are involved in a…

Health
5
ShareCare of Leelanau Inc

To facilitate connecting the Leelanau county community of seniors with services and activities that promote a healthy independent and fulfilled lifestyle while aging.

Human Services
6
Great Lakes Bay Health Centers

To provide high quality health care to individuals and community groups in Saginaw, Bay, and other nearby counties. Services are provided without regard to race, beliefs or ability to pay.

Health
7
Saginaw Public Libraries Foundation

Support library activities through materials and services

—
8
St Vincent Catholic Charities

The mission of the St. Vincent Catholic Charities is the work of the Catholic Church to share the love of Christ by performing corporal and spiritual works of Mercy.

—
9
Michigan Family Resources

Michigan Family Resources mission is to deliver holistic family-centered services to children that promote their well-being and development.

Education
10
Lakeland Immediate Care Center

Our mission is to provide necessary, compassionate healthcare to people in our community.

Health
11
Midmichigan Health Services

To provide high quality community-oriented, patient-centered health services for all.

Health
12
Saginaw County Youth Protection Council

To empower and support children and families in reaching their full potential and becoming self-sufficient, saving lives and creating futures through educational enrichment and shelter services.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Svrc Industries Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lions Visually Impaired Youth Camp. 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

14 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. 14 of the 26 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SAGINAW COMM FOUNDATION: $124,326 · OtherSAGINAW COMM FOUNDATIONIndividual grant recipient: $50,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientOLD TOWN CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CENTER: $40,000 · OtherOLD TOWN CHRISTIAN OUTREACH CENTERREAD ASSOC OF SAGINAW: $34,680 · OtherREAD ASSOC OF SAGINAWJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF CENTRAL MICHIGAN: $20,000 · OtherJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT: $20,000 · OtherFORGOTTEN MAN MINISTRIES: $15,000 · Other+9 more: $72,007 · Other+9 moreMISSION IN THE CITY: $45,000 · Human ServicesMISSION IN TH…Child & Family Service of Saginaw: $20,000 · Human ServicesChild & Famil…Operation Warm Inc: $10,000 · Human ServicesOperation War…A & D CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $26,000 · HealthA & D CHAR…LIFECLINIC COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $25,000 · HealthLIFECLINIC…Westlund Guidance Clinic: $9,232 · HealthWestlund G…TEMPLEARTS: $52,000 · Arts & CultureTEMPLEART…SAGINAW BASIN LAND CONSERVANCY: $30,000 · EnvironmentSVRC Industries Inc: $27,000 · EmploymentSaginaw Community Foundation: $22,484 · Philanthropy
Other$376,013Human Services$75,000Health$60,232Arts & Culture$52,000Environment$30,000Employment$27,000Philanthropy$22,484

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMISSION IN THE CITY: $45,000 over 1y, 41% of budgetSAGINAW BASIN LAND CONSERVANCY: $30,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetSVRC Industries Inc: $27,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetA & D CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $26,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLIFECLINIC COMMUNITY RESOURCES: $25,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetSaginaw Community Foundation: $22,484 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetChild & Family Service of Saginaw: $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetFORGOTTEN MAN MINISTRIES: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetOperation Warm Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFood Bank of Eastern Michigan: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCommunities First Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWestlund Guidance Clinic: $9,232 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetLIONS VISUALLY IMPAIRED YOUTH CAMP: $4,800 over 1y, 0.8% 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.

Boutell Memorial FundWm McNally Family Fou…Harvey Randall Wickes…Wickson-Link Memorial…Morley FoundationSaginaw Community Fou…Consumers Energy Foun…Margaret Jane Stoker …Allen E & Marie A Nic…C K Eddy Family Memor…Alice E Turner Memori…Community Foundation …
Boutell Memorial FundOH20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Boutell Memorial Fund · Wm McNally Family Foundation · Harvey Randall Wickes Foundation · Wickson-Link Memorial Foundation · Morley Foundation · Saginaw Community Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Margaret Jane Stoker Charitable Trust · Allen E & Marie A Nickless Memorial Foundation · C K Eddy Family Memorial Fund · Alice E Turner Memorial Trust · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan

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 Arthur H Webster Jr Endowment Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Arthur H Webster Jr Endowment Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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
    4report 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.

    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 26 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 Arthur H Webster Jr Endowment’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