Skip to content

· Private foundation

Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$697k
Granted FY2024still arriving
34
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$57k
Largest
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$946kHuman Services$786kHealth$684kYouth Development$675kFood & Nutrition$651kHousing & Shelter$629kPhilanthropy$255kCommunity Improvement$251kOther$0
02FY2024 · 34 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k10 grants · $45k
  • $10k–50k21 grants · $490k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $162k
$18,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MONROIE CO$30,000
MAKE-A-WISH MICHIGAN$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
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 (FY18–24, $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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%OPERATION WARM: $10k → 6%OPERATION WARM: $10k → 6%DIABETES YOUTH SERVICES: $17k → 18%OPERATION WARM: $10k → 6%DIABETES YOUTH SERVICES: $10k → 18%OPERATION WARM: $10k → 6%DIABETES YOUTH SERVICES: $10k → 18%OPERATION WARM: $5k → 6%DIABETES YOUTH SERVICES: $10k → 18%DIABETES YOUTH SERVICES: $10k → 18%NEW BEGINNINGS MERCY HOUSE: $10k → 10%MONROE FAMILY YMCA: $2k → 10%MONROE FAMILY YMCA: $2k → 10%SELAH-S CENTER OF HOPE: $48k → 10%MONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY: $39k → 10%MONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY: $34k → 10%MONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY: $34k → 10%SELAH-S CENTER OF HOPE: $31k → 10%SELAH-S CENTER OF HOPE: $26k → 10%SELAH-S CENTER OF HOPE: $10k → 10%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.5M · 51 repeat orgs$231k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against +7% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

51
15

Total granted

$5.5M
$184k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+7%

Still filing today

27%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $47k 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
Human ServicesHealthAnimalsEducationFood & NutritionRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • GL
    GABBY'S LADDER INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $454k · revenue +193% · 35% of their budget
  • HS
    HUMANE SOCIETY OF MONROE COUNTY INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $148k · revenue +41%
  • SH
    SIENA HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY
    5× · 2018–2022 · $128k · revenue +14%

Funded once

  • OS
    OUR SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH
    one grant, 2023 · $40k
  • TL
    THE LORDS HARVEST PANTRY
    one grant, 2021 · $39k
  • NC
    NEWTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
    one grant, 2017 · $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

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
Monroe City Senior Nutrition Center

To provide services for the elderly

Food & Nutrition
2
Cans Can Ministries

Supplie & shelter for children & seniors

Philanthropy
3
Monroe County Sheltercare Inc

To assist at-risk individuals

—
4
The Refuge of Ms Inc

Meets the needs of individuals with developmental and/or physical disabilities.

Human Services
5
Sunrise Therapeutic Riding CenterInc

Utilizes horses to provide individuals with mental and physical disabilities the opportunity for personal growth through the horseback riding experience.

—
6
Monroe Senior and Community Center

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.

Human Services
7
Meals On Wheels La Mirada

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,…

—
8
Mason Senior Citizen Center

To delivery hot meals to those unable to leave their homes. we also assist with rent and utlitilies to families in need.

Human Services
9
Mecosta Osceola Youth Attention Center Inc

Supporting runaway, homeless and at-risk youth in our community since 1977. serving mecosta, osceola and newaygo counties.

Human Services
10
Mi Abilities
Human Services
11
The Information Center Inc the Family Resource Place

To connect people in need with human resource services that can solve their needs and improve their lives.

—
12
Malone Adult Center Inc

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…

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Diabetes Youth Services; 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

18 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. 18 of the 70 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/18
Grantees still filing
12/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HABITAT OF HUMANITY FOR MONROE: $420,000 · OtherHABITAT OF HUMANITY FOR MONROEMONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $309,000 · OtherMONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGEGOD WORKS: $304,500 · OtherGOD WORKSALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION: $285,000 · OtherALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATIONCONCORDIA UNIVERSITY ANN ARBOR: $245,000 · OtherCONCORDIA UNIVERSITY ANN ARBORFAMILY COUNSELING & SHELT: $221,000 · OtherMAKE-A-WISH MICHIGAN: $220,000 · OtherYOUNG LIFE CAMPAIGN-MONROE: $195,000 · OtherPROMEDICA MONROE REGIONAL HOSP: $190,900 · OtherMONROE COUNTY BUSINESS DEV CORP: $181,000 · OtherLINCOLN PARK HIGH ARMY JUNIOR ROTC: $160,000 · OtherPHILADELPHIA HOUSE: $158,000 · OtherUNITED WAY OF MONROE COUNTY: $155,000 · Other+43 more: $1,474,600 · Other+43 moreGABBY'S LADDER INC: $453,535 · HealthGABBY'S L…+1 more: $11,500 · HealthSELAHS CENTER OF HOPE INC: $114,500 · Human ServicesMONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM: $107,000 · Human ServicesDIABETES YOUTH SERVICES: $57,000 · Human ServicesOperation Warm Inc: $45,000 · Human Services+2 more: $14,000 · Human ServicesSIENA HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY: $128,000 · EducationGeneration E Institute: $70,000 · EducationHUMANE SOCIETY OF MONROE COUNTY INC: $148,000 · Animals+1 more: $5,000 · AnimalsLIVING INDEPENDENCE FOR EVERYONE: $88,000 · Food & NutritionSPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN INC: $18,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$4,519,000Health$465,035Human Services$337,500Education$198,000Animals$153,000Food & Nutrition$88,000Recreation & Sports$18,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGABBY'S LADDER INC: $453,535 over 8y, 35% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF MONROE COUNTY INC: $148,000 over 8y, 5.8% of budgetSIENA HEIGHTS UNIVERSITY: $128,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSELAHS CENTER OF HOPE INC: $114,500 over 4y, 20% of budgetMONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM: $107,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetLIVING INDEPENDENCE FOR EVERYONE: $88,000 over 8y, 0.9% of budgetGeneration E Institute: $70,000 over 3y, 79% of budgetRIVER RAISIN CENTRE FOR THE ARTS INC: $60,000 over 8y, 1.8% of budgetDIABETES YOUTH SERVICES: $57,000 over 5y, 4.3% of budgetOperation Warm Inc: $45,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetARTHUR LESOW COMMUNITY CENTER: $42,000 over 6y, 3.3% of budgetCANS FOR KIDS: $37,000 over 8y, 98% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN INC: $18,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetMUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION INC: $11,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNEW BEGINNINGS MERCY HOUSE: $10,000 over 1y, 7.3% of budgetTherapeutic Riding Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF COMPANION ANIMALS: $5,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetTHE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MONROE MICHIGAN: $4,000 over 2y, 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 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 ↗

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.

La-Z-Boy FoundationMI17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 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.

    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 70 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Edward M & Henrietta M Knabusch Charitable Trust 2’s filings →

    More from the funding graph