Skip to content
Herrick Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Herrick Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$8.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
88
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$1.6M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Health$12MArts & Culture$8.6MEducation$4.7MHousing & Shelter$4.6MEnvironment$3.7MHuman Services$3.1MFood & Nutrition$2.8MPublic Benefit$1.7MOther$0
02FY2025 · 88 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k35 grants · $78k
  • $10k–50k22 grants · $433k
  • $50k–250k22 grants · $2.0M
  • $250k+9 grants · $6.3M
$16,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$177M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY$1,555,500
INTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS$1,000,000
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIG$1,000,000
PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN F$750,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$500,000
LITTLE TRAVERSE CONSERVANCY$500,000
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM$500,000
HURON WATERLOO PATHWAYS INITIATIVE$250,000
INTERFAITH HOSPITALITY NETWORK OF W$250,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF MONROE INC$200,000
MICHIGAN COMMUNITY CAPITAL$200,000
GROWING HOPE$150,000
MICHIGAN COALITION TO END DOMESTIC$150,000
THE CORNER HEALTH CENTER$125,000
MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY$115,000
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 (FY20–25, $3.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 76% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GRANTMAKERS IN AGING: $50k → 9%BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS INC: $10k → 5%CEDAR POST INC: $8k → 14%GAP MINISTRIES: $50k → 15%BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS: $250 → 5%WESTERN WASHTENAW AREA VALUE EXPRES: $20k → 14%WESTERN WASHTENAW AREA VALUE EXPRES: $250 → 14%ANSWERS FOR LIFE PREGNANCY CENTER: $20k → 15%OZONE HOUSE INC: $500k → 14%BLUE STAR SERVICE DOGS: $51k → 5%COMMUNITY SHARING: $25k → 8%YOUTH ON THEIR OWN: $50k → 15%HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN INC: $25k → 8%PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN F: $750k → 8%PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN F: $25k → 8%FRIENDSHIP CENTERS OF EMMET COUNTY: $25k → 9%PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN F: $5k → 8%ENNIS CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC: $100k → 21%PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN F: $250 → 8%CHILDREN'S LITERACY NETWORK: $10k → 14%CHILDREN'S LITERACY NETWORK: $10k → 14%DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT INC: $10k → 14%ARBOR HOSPICE: $175k → 14%ARBOR HOSPICE: $75k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $1.6M → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $115k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $50k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $50k → 14%HOME GROWN COMMUNITY: $25k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $16k → 14%OZONE HOUSE INC: $10k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $10k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $10k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $8k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $8k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $8k → 14%MANY HANDS LIFESHARING COMMUNITY: $250 → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MI
NY
MA
IN
OH
VA
AZ
DC
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 6% of Herrick Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Herrick Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$33M · 46 repeat orgs$11M to everyone else

46 repeat relationships: 21 still active in FY2025, 25 since wound down; 31 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

46
67

Total granted

$33M
$7.5M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+21%

Still filing today

80%
58%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.1M went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationHealthArts & CultureEnvironmentFood & NutritionOther
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

  • UO
    University of Michigan
    5× · 2020–2024 · $4.2M · revenue +139% · 76% of their budget
  • HF
    HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM
    6× · 2020–2025 · $3.0M · revenue +48%
  • GL
    Great Lakes Center for the Arts
    5× · 2020–2024 · $2.6M · revenue +53%

Funded once

  • MC
    MI COALITION TO END DOMESTIC AND SE
    one grant, 2020 · $1.1M
  • MC
    MACKINAC CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $1.0M · revenue +64%
  • MN
    MCLAREN NORTHERN MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $440k · revenue +42%
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
Business Leaders for Michigan

Business leaders for michigan is a nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide organization driven by ceos from the state's leading employers, all working toward a shared goal: making michigan a top 10 state for jobs, talent and a thriving economy.…

—
2
Mid Michigan Community Action Agency Inc

Mid michigan community action guides local residents on the path to self-sufficiency through empowerment, education and community enrichment.

—
3
Michigan Assoc of Community Mental Health Boards

Assisting the community mental health boards of michigan in developing methods for mental health planning, care and treatment.

—
4
Business Leaders for Michigan Foundation

Business leaders for michigan is a nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide organization driven by ceos from the state's leading employers, all working toward a shared goal: making michigan a top 10 state for jobs, talent and a thriving economy.…

Community Improvement
5
Michigan Chamber of Commerce

To promote conditions favorable to job creation and business success in michigan.

—
6
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
7
Michigan Enviromental Council

Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.

Environment
8
Mymichigan Medical Group

Creating healthy communities - together

Health
9
Michigan Science Center

The mission of the michigan science center is to inspire curious minds of all ages to discover, explore and appreciate science, technology, engineering and math in a creative, dynamic learning environment.

Education
10
Area Agency On Aging of Western Michigan Inc

Through internal expertise, external partnerships, and advocacy, the area agency on aging of western michigan provides older adults, adults with disabilities, and their caregivers equitable access to services that promote independence and…

Human Services
11
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
12
Great Lakes Community Action Partnership

The mission of great lakes community action partnership is to create partnerships and opportunites to help individuals, families and communities thrive.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ozone House Inc; the most unlike its peers is Kinetic Research Corporation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

101 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 101 of the 151 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.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
25
Early backer (in before they grew)
99/101
Grantees still filing
66/101
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University of Michigan: $4,200,000 · OtherUniversity of MichiganTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,000,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYMI COALITION TO END DOMESTIC AND SE: $1,075,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $1,000,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $1,000,000 · OtherMCLAREN NORTHERN MICHIGAN FOUND: $980,000 · OtherMACKINAC CENTER: $1,000,000 · Other+88 more: $10,409,543 · Other+88 moreINTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $4,950,000 · Arts & CultureINTERLOCHEN CENTER F…Great Lakes Center for the Arts: $2,575,000 · Arts & CultureGreat Lakes Center f…Riverside Arts Center Foundation Inc: $310,250 · Arts & Culture+4 more: $450,000 · Arts & Culture+4 moreHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM: $3,000,000 · HealthHENRY FORD HEAL…Packard Health Inc: $1,550,000 · HealthPackard Health …UMRC-PORTER HILLS FOUNDATION: $1,150,000 · HealthUMRC-PORTER HIL…MCLAREN NORTHERN MICHIGAN FOUNDATION: $440,000 · HealthMCLAREN NORTHER…+6 more: $145,750 · HealthMany Hands Lifesharing Community: $1,855,750 · Human ServicesMany Hand…Presbyterian Villages of Michigan: $780,250 · Human ServicesPresbyter…OZONE HOUSE INC: $510,000 · Human ServicesOZONE HOU…Arbor Hospice Inc: $250,000 · Human ServicesArbor Hos…+14 more: $488,600 · Human Services+14 moreASHLAND UNIVERSITY: $825,000 · EducationAIM HIGH SCHOOL: $715,410 · EducationSTEM FLIGHTS: $266,100 · EducationTHE WINGS CLUB FOUNDATION INC: $200,000 · EducationTHE GLOUCESTER INSTITUTE INC: $200,000 · EducationLAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $170,500 · EducationTHE NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $150,000 · EducationConservative Partnership Institute: $100,000 · EducationHILLSDALE COLLEGE: $100,000 · Education+5 more: $178,878 · EducationThe Stewardship Network: $925,000 · EnvironmentLittle Traverse Conservancy Inc: $515,000 · EnvironmentHURON WATERLOO PATHWAYS INITIATIVE: $300,000 · EnvironmentLEGACY LAND CONSERVANCY: $250,250 · EnvironmentGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN: $1,500,000 · Food & Nutrition+2 more: $35,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$21,664,543Arts & Culture$8,285,250Health$6,285,750Human Services$3,884,600Education$2,905,888Environment$1,990,250Food & Nutrition$1,535,000

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 budgetINTERLOCHEN CENTER FOR THE ARTS: $4,950,000 over 6y, 3.0% of budgetUniversity of Michigan: $4,200,000 over 5y, 76% of budgetHENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM: $3,000,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetGreat Lakes Center for the Arts: $2,575,000 over 5y, 21% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $2,000,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMany Hands Lifesharing Community: $1,855,750 over 3y, 68% of budgetPackard Health Inc: $1,550,000 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN: $1,500,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetUMRC-PORTER HILLS FOUNDATION: $1,150,000 over 3y, 4.3% of budgetMACKINAC CENTER: $1,000,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetThe Stewardship Network: $925,000 over 4y, 42% of budgetASHLAND UNIVERSITY: $825,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetAIM HIGH SCHOOL: $715,410 over 6y, 8.4% of budgetWASHTENAW HOUSING ALLIANCE: $600,000 over 4y, 88% of budgetLittle Traverse Conservancy Inc: $515,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOld Pueblo Community Services: $510,000 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetOZONE HOUSE INC: $510,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR MICHIGAN: $500,001 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetTHE MICHIGAN WOMEN'S FOUNDATION: $500,000 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetMICHIGAN COALITION TO END DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE: $450,250 over 3y, 3.1% of budgetGROWING HOPE INC: $441,250 over 5y, 14% of budgetMCLAREN NORTHERN MICHIGAN FOUNDATION: $440,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetLENAWEE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $435,550 over 3y, 2.6% of budgetHOPE MEDICAL CLINIC INC: $350,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetRiverside Arts Center Foundation Inc: $310,250 over 3y, 32% of budgetLACASA: $300,000 over 2y, 4.4% of budgetHURON WATERLOO PATHWAYS INITIATIVE: $300,000 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetSTEM FLIGHTS: $266,100 over 5y, 50% of budgetLEGACY LAND CONSERVANCY: $250,250 over 3y, 5.9% of budgetArbor Hospice Inc: $250,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetHabitat for Humanity of Monroe Inc: $210,250 over 2y, 17% of budgetSOUTH MICHIGAN FOOD BANK: $200,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetTHE WINGS CLUB FOUNDATION INC: $200,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetAnn Arbor Art Association: $175,000 over 2y, 6.6% of budgetLENAWEE YOUTH CENTER INC: $175,000 over 1y, 83% of budgetLAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $170,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $150,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetDETROIT SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA INC: $150,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCORNER HEALTH CENTER: $135,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetANN ARBOR AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $125,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetKINETIC RESEARCH CORPORATION: $121,041 over 2y, 16% of budgetYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS: $115,250 over 3y, 3.3% of budgetENNIS CENTER FOR CHILDREN INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetHAVEN FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 7.4% of budgetConservative Partnership Institute: $100,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDISCOVERY CENTER GREAT LAKES: $100,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetHILLSDALE COLLEGE: $100,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFOOD GATHERERS: $90,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Community Foundation …Ann Arbor Area Commun…Harry a and Margaret …DTE Energy FoundationUnited Way of Washten…James a and Faith Kni…Consumers Energy Foun…United Way for Southe…Duffy FoundationThe Buhr FoundationThe Martin Family Fou…Charles Stewart Mott …
Community Foundation for Southeast MichiganMI61.6× affinity35 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation · Harry a and Margaret D Towsley Foundation · DTE Energy Foundation · United Way of Washtenaw County · James a and Faith Knight Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Duffy Foundation · The Buhr Foundation · The Martin Family Foundation · Charles Stewart Mott 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 Herrick Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Herrick Foundation. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 7%
  • Northeastern University: 7% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
36report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
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 Herrick Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Herrick Foundation 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 151 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 Herrick’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