· Private foundation
Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 78% of EDWARD M & HENRIETTA M KNABUSCH CHARITABLE TRUST 2’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k10 grants · $45k
- $10k–50k21 grants · $490k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $162k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| GABBY'S LADDER | $57,405 |
| HABITAT OF HUMANITY FOR MONROE | $55,000 |
| ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION | $50,000 |
| SELAH-S CENTER OF HOPE | $48,000 |
| GOD WORKS | $39,000 |
| HOT LINE TO GOD | $35,000 |
| MONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY | $34,000 |
| FAMILY COUNSELING & SHELT | $32,000 |
| MAKE-A-WISH MICHIGAN | $30,000 |
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MONROIE CO | $30,000 |
| YOUNG LIFE CAMPAIGN-MONROE | $25,000 |
| CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR | $25,000 |
| GENERATION E INSTITUTE | $25,000 |
| ARMY JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS | $20,000 |
| UNITED WAY OF MONROE COUNTY | $20,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $338k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 87% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +36% since the first grant, against +7% for the ones you funded once.
51 repeat relationships — 30 still active in FY2024, 21 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $47k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- GLGABBY'S LADDER INC8× · 2017–2024 · $454k · revenue +193% · 35% of their budget
- HSHUMANE SOCIETY OF MONROE COUNTY INC8× · 2017–2024 · $148k · revenue +41%
- SHSIENA HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY5× · 2018–2022 · $128k · revenue +14%
Funded once
- OSOUR SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCHone grant, 2023 · $40k
- TLTHE LORDS HARVEST PANTRYone grant, 2021 · $39k
- NCNEWTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMone grant, 2017 · $20k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To provide services for the elderly
Supplie & shelter for children & seniors
To assist at-risk individuals
Meets the needs of individuals with developmental and/or physical disabilities.
Utilizes horses to provide individuals with mental and physical disabilities the opportunity for personal growth through the horseback riding experience.
To provide services and programs for residents of monroe, iowa area that promote their wellbeing, support their independence and encourage their involvement in community life.
Dedication to helping the disabled, aged, and chronically or temporarily ill by providing nourishing food at nominal cost during periods of need to help residents to remain self sufficient in their own home, regardless of age, race, color,…
To delivery hot meals to those unable to leave their homes. we also assist with rent and utlitilies to families in need.
Supporting runaway, homeless and at-risk youth in our community since 1977. serving mecosta, osceola and newaygo counties.
To connect people in need with human resource services that can solve their needs and improve their lives.
Providing information & services for the Elderly and Disabled, making referrals for services such as home health aides, housekeeping services, nursing and therapy services. Provide recreational events, transportation, meals and community…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Diabetes Youth Services and 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.
Your grantees are a median of 38 years old; the field is 15. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 70 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds GABBY'S LADDER INC ↗
- Who funds HUMANE SOCIETY OF MONROE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds SIENA HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds SELAHS CENTER OF HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds MONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM ↗
- Who funds LIVING INDEPENDENCE FOR EVERYONE ↗
- Who funds Generation E Institute ↗
- Who funds RIVER RAISIN CENTRE FOR THE ARTS INC ↗
- Who funds DIABETES YOUTH SERVICES ↗
- Who funds Operation Warm Inc ↗
- Who funds ARTHUR LESOW COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
- Who funds CANS FOR KIDS ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: La-Z-Boy Foundation · Dte Energy Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Kurt L and Renee M Darrow Family Foundation · The Philbeck Foundation · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2 funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2?
Find your warmest path to Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2 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.