Skip to content
Hess Wm G & Myrtle Charitable Tr Xxxxx0005 at a glance

· Private foundation

Hess Wm G & Myrtle Charitable Tr Xxxxx0005

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$325k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Recreation & Sports$656kHuman Services$495kFood & Nutrition$454kEducation$302kHealth$300kYouth Development$139kReligion$70kHousing & Shelter$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $27k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $88k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $210k
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$6.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FORGOTTEN HARVEST INC$100,000
OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER$60,000
OAKLAND LITERACY COUNCIL$50,000
TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN DBA$30,000
GILDAS CLUB$18,000
OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES$15,000
NEW DAY FOUNDATION FOR FAMILIES$15,000
SPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN$10,000
LITERATURE CIRCLE SOCIETY$9,834
GUEST HOUSE INC$9,712
WATERFORD YOUTH ASSISTANCE$7,500
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, $335k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $20k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $20k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $15k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $15k → 8%JUDSON CENTER INC: $35k → 8%JUDSON CENTER INC: $25k → 8%JUDSON CENTER INC: $25k → 8%JUDSON CENTER INC: $21k → 8%OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER: $60k → 8%OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER: $25k → 8%OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER: $25k → 8%OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER: $20k → 8%PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN: $15k → 8%OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER: $15k → 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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.4M · 15 repeat orgs$94k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against +15% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
6

Total granted

$2.4M
$84k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+15%

Still filing today

53%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
Human ServicesHealthFood & NutritionReligionRecreation & SportsHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • FORGOTTEN HARVEST INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $454k · revenue +12%
  • OL
    OAKLAND LITERACY COUNCIL
    9× · 2017–2025 · $282k · revenue +154%
  • OD
    OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER INC
    5× · 2017–2025 · $145k · revenue +289%

Funded once

  • SO
    SOUTH OAKLAND SHELTERgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +392%
  • PV
    Presbyterian Villages of Michigan
    one grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue +15%
  • GL
    GREAT LAKES FIELD SERVICE COUNCIL
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
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
Lighthouse of Oakland County

To support lighthouse mi in their mission to build equitable communities and alleviate poverty in partnership with and in service to individuals, families, and organizations.

Human Services
2
Family Outreach Center

Leading the way in promoting healthy family living by reaching out to underserved populations and those who are in our community.

—
3
Michigan Family Resources

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

Education
4
Michigan Christian Home

The michigan christian home dba beacon hill at eastgate, a not-for-profit corporation, provides housing and health services in a christian environment for older adults, thus enabling them to meet their ongoing physical, social and…

—
5
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
6
Oakwood Village University Woods Homes Inc

Oakwood is called to serve a thriving community where seniors live with dignity, connection, and purpose.

Health
7
Elder Law of Michigan

To advocate for, educate, and assist our target populations. our services address the needs of many different people, but we continue to target our services to older adults and persons with disabilities.

Human Services
8
Say Detroit

Providing pathways to success for detroiters in need.

Housing & Shelter
9
Mercy Outreach Ministries Inc

To provide elderly or handicapped families and persons on a nonprofit basis, rental housing and related facilities and services.

Health
10
Habitat for Humanity of Oakland County Inc

Seeking to put God's love into action, Habitat for Humanity of Oakland County brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.

—
11
Mercy Outreach Ministries Ii Inc

To provide elderly or handicapped families and persons on a nonprofit basis, rental housing and related facilities and services.

Human Services
12
Hospice & Palliative Care of the Ohio Valley Inc

Helping individuals live with dignity through the final stage of life.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oakland Family Services; the most unlike its peers is Literature Circle Society. 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

13 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. 13 of the 22 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WATERFORD TOWNSHIP PARKS AND RECREATION: $485,480 · OtherWATERFORD TOWNSHIP PARKS AND RECREATIONOAKLAND LITERACY COUNCIL: $281,901 · OtherOAKLAND LITERACY COUNCILTRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN DBA: $225,000 · OtherTRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN DBAJUDSON CENTER INC SPECIALIZED: $150,000 · OtherJUDSON CENTER INC SPECIALIZEDWATERFORD YOUTH ASSISTANCE: $139,000 · OtherWATERFORD YOUTH ASSISTANCEGILDAS CLUB: $111,000 · OtherGILDAS CLUBDAUGHTERS OF DIVINE CHARITY: $60,000 · Other+4 more: $45,400 · OtherFORGOTTEN HARVEST INC: $454,000 · Food & NutritionFORGOTTEN HARVEST IN…OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER INC: $145,000 · Human ServicesOPEN DOOR OUTRE…JUDSON CENTER INC: $105,100 · Human ServicesJUDSON CENTER I…OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $70,000 · Human ServicesOAKLAND FAMILY …Presbyterian Villages of Michigan: $15,000 · Human ServicesGUEST HOUSE INC: $49,712 · HealthTHE NEW DAY FOUNDATION FOR FAMILIES: $25,000 · HealthSPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN INC: $60,000 · Recreation & SportsSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $25,000 · Housing & ShelterLITERATURE CIRCLE SOCIETY: $9,834 · EducationSONG AND SPIRIT INC: $9,000 · Religion
Other$1,497,781Food & Nutrition$454,000Human Services$335,100Health$74,712Recreation & Sports$60,000Housing & Shelter$25,000Education$9,834Religion$9,000

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 budgetFORGOTTEN HARVEST INC: $454,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetOAKLAND LITERACY COUNCIL: $281,901 over 9y, 15% of budgetOPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER INC: $145,000 over 5y, 5.2% of budgetJUDSON CENTER INC: $105,100 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetOAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $70,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN INC: $60,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetGUEST HOUSE INC: $49,712 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetTHE NEW DAY FOUNDATION FOR FAMILIES: $25,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $25,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetPresbyterian Villages of Michigan: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE FURNITURE RESOURCE CENTER: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetLITERATURE CIRCLE SOCIETY: $9,834 over 1y, 9.1% of budgetSONG AND SPIRIT INC: $9,000 over 1y, 4.1% 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 FORGOTTEN HARVEST INC ↗
  • Who funds OAKLAND LITERACY COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds OPEN DOOR OUTREACH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds JUDSON CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN INC ↗
  • Who funds GUEST HOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NEW DAY FOUNDATION FOR FAMILIES ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER ↗
  • Who funds Presbyterian Villages of Michigan ↗
  • Who funds THE FURNITURE RESOURCE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LITERATURE CIRCLE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds SONG AND SPIRIT INC ↗

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 …United Way for Southe…Phillip and Elizabeth…Kronlund Foundation C…The Village Club Foun…Lula C Wilson Trust X…Aa Van Elslander Foun…The Carls FoundationThe Bank of America C…National Philanthropi…Charities Aid Foundat…Donor Advised Charita…
Community Foundation for Southeast MichiganMI21.2× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Phillip and Elizabeth Filmer Memorial · Kronlund Foundation Charitable Trust · The Village Club Foundation · Lula C Wilson Trust Xxxxx3003 · Aa Van Elslander Foundation · The Carls Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Charities Aid Foundation America · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Hess Wm G & Myrtle Charitable Tr Xxxxx0005 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Hess Wm G & Myrtle Charitable Tr Xxxxx0005. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    7report 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 22 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 Hess Wm G & Myrtle Charitable Tr Xxxxx0005’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