Skip to content

· Private foundation

Assarian Michael T 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.

$38k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$145kHuman Services$91kYouth Development$85kReligion$44kArts & Culture$38kSocial Science$25kInternational$11kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,900
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LEGACY CHM$5,800
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION$2,900
ST VINCENT AND SARA H FISHER$2,900
ANGEL'S PLACE$2,900
DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ART$2,900
BIRMINGHAM BLOOMFIELD HILLS ART$2,900
ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA$2,900
VISTA MARIA$2,900
MAKE A WISH FOUNDATION OF$2,900
ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH$2,900
BOYS HOPE GIRLS HOPE OF DETROIT$2,900
THE DETROIT INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN$2,900
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 (FY17–25, $44k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ANGEL'S PLACE: $6k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $5k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $5k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $5k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $5k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $5k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $5k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $5k → 8%ANGEL'S PLACE: $3k → 8%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$444k · 14 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
0

Total granted

$444k
$0

Still filing today

57%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesArts & CultureInternationalOther
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

  • AP
    ANGELS' PLACE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $44k · revenue +84%
  • VISTA MARIA
    9× · 2017–2025 · $23k · revenue +84%
  • THE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $22k · revenue +46%

Funded once

    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 Greater Detroit Health Transition Company

    Gdahc mission: together with our partners, we empower and improve the health and economic vitality of individuals, organizations and communities by catalyzing the power of collaboration. gdahc vision: healthy people. healthy community.…

    —
    2
    Detroit Historical Society

    The Detroit Historical Society tells Detroit's stories and why they matter through its exhibits, programs, outreach, and the preservation and dissemination of its artifacts and collections.

    Arts & Culture
    3
    Trinity Health - Michigan

    We, trinity health-michigan and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities. trinity health-michigan is a member of trinity health.

    Health
    4
    Michigan Virtual University

    Maximize learning and teaching by bringing together the best in people and technology.

    Education
    5
    Detroit Parent Network

    To be a champion for parents of children in the community.

    Human Services
    6
    Michigan Assn Infant Mental Health

    Infant mental health education and care

    —
    7
    Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago

    SRAlab is dedicated to providing the best patient outcomes through the highest-quality clinical care, translational research, scientific discovery and education.

    Health
    8
    Interact of Michigan Inc

    Interact of michigan, inc. is dedicated to collaborative delivery of evidence-supported mental health and substance abuse treatments that foster hope and wellness. interact of michigan, inc. has developed services designed to meet the…

    —
    9
    Michigan Home for the Armenian Aged

    Our goal is to assist each person to remain as independent as possible. we wish to create an environment and atmosphere that is filled with vibrancy, pride, security and a sense of belonging.

    —
    10
    Misericordia Home

    The mission of misericordia home is to support children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who choose our community by providing the highest quality residential, training, and employment services. we provide the…

    Human Services
    11
    Living Alternatives for the Developmentally Disabled Inc

    To provide all levels of support to people with physical and mental disabilities in the community. always striving to enhance the quality of life for all that we serve. to treat all people with dignity and respect. to advocate for the…

    Human Services
    12
    Mercy Health Partners

    We, mercy health and trinity health, serve together in the spirit of the gospel as a compassionate and transforming healing presence within our communities.mercy health partners is a member of mercy health and trinity health.

    —
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Vista Maria; the most unlike its peers is Muscular Dystrophy Association 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 14 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
    5/8
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    Hope Ignites Detroit: $84,743 · OtherHope Ignites DetroitST VINCENT AND SARA H FISHER: $43,821 · OtherST VINCENT AND SARA H FISHERST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH: $43,821 · OtherST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCHTHE DETROIT INSTITUTE FOR: $24,737 · OtherTHE DETROIT INSTITUTE FORMAKE A WISH FOUNDATION OF: $23,361 · OtherMAKE A WISH FOUNDATION OFVISTA MARIA: $23,361 · OtherVISTA MARIABIRMINGHAM BLOOMFIELD HILLS ART: $16,177 · OtherBIRMINGHAM BLOOMFIELD HILLS ART+1 more: $6,184 · OtherLEGACY CHM: $67,182 · HealthLEGACY CHMMUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION INC: $23,361 · HealthMUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCI…DETROIT INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN: $10,900 · HealthDETROIT INSTITUTE FOR CHI…ANGELS' PLACE: $43,821 · Human ServicesANGELS' PLA…THE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS: $21,861 · Arts & CultureARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA INC: $11,084 · International
    Other$266,205Health$101,443Human Services$43,821Arts & Culture$21,861International$11,084

    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 budgetHope Ignites Detroit: $84,743 over 9y, 1.8% of budgetLEGACY CHM: $67,182 over 9y, 4.5% of budgetANGELS' PLACE: $43,821 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetMUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION INC: $23,361 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetVISTA MARIA: $23,361 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS: $21,861 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA INC: $11,084 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetDETROIT INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN: $10,900 over 3y, 0.1% 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 Hope Ignites Detroit ↗
    • Who funds LEGACY CHM ↗
    • Who funds ANGELS' PLACE ↗
    • Who funds MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
    • Who funds VISTA MARIA ↗
    • Who funds THE DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS ↗
    • Who funds ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA INC ↗
    • Who funds DETROIT INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN ↗

    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 FoundationWA2.7× affinity4 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 Assarian Michael T Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Assarian Michael T 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
      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 14 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 Assarian Michael T’s filings →

      More from the funding graph