· Private foundation
John and Melissa Besse Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k24 grants · $99k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $91k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $167k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MICHIGAN TECH FD | $110,000 |
| TREES FOR TOMORROW | $56,500 |
| MARQUETTE CITY BAND | $45,000 |
| GLADSTONE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT | $13,200 |
| PREGNANCY SERVICES OF DELTA COUNTY | $13,000 |
| BAY CLIFF HEALTH CAMP | $10,000 |
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF DELTA COUNTY | $10,000 |
| LAKEVIEW CEMETERY | $8,000 |
| NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| BAY COLLEGE FOUNDATION | $5,000 |
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MARQUETTE COUNTY | $5,000 |
| FORTUNE LAKE LUTHERAN CAMP | $5,000 |
| ST VINCENT DEPAUL OF ESCANABA | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| YMCA NORTHERN LIGHTS OF DELTA COUNTY | $5,000 |
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 (FY18–25, $70k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% 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 +48% since the first grant, against +42% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 19 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90k 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
- PSPREGNANCY SERVICES OF DELTA COUNTY5× · 2020–2025 · $43k · revenue +210%
- TSTRI-COUNTY SAFE HARBOR INC5× · 2018–2025 · $27k · revenue +48%
- LILAKESTATE INDUSTRIES4× · 2018–2025 · $16k · revenue +35%
Funded once
- FPFIRE & PUBLIC SAFETY DEPTSone grant, 2018 · $300k
- CHCHASSELL HISTORICAL ORGANIZATION INCone grant, 2023 · $55k
- MTMI TECH ENTERPRISE CORP SMARTZONEone grant, 2022 · $30k
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 promote business and economic development for eight towns in southwest michigan.
Organized to receive and administer funds raised for the purpose of supporting the County owned and operated Grand Traverse Pavilions
The mission of the Michigan Trails Fund is to secure and distribute private resources that will be used to assist in the expansion and connectivity of the statewide non-motorized trail system which promotes access for all, healthy…
Safeguard southern michigan's land and water to support diverse, resilient, and thriving communities - forever
To conserve the land, water and scenic character of leelanau county, and to provide educational programs to develop an understanding and appreciation of leelanau county's natural heritage.
To stimulate and sustain a vibrant regional economy by facilitating economic growth and prosperity.
To solicit and collect contributions for charitable, scientific, literary, and educational purposes to benefit the people of and around Tuscola County, Michigan
Receive and Administer funds for the public welfare of the people of Huron County, Michigan
Dedicated to facilitating economic development strategies that promote and secure opportunities for business retention, growth, and the attraction of new industries that create quality jobs for community residents.
Maintains snowmobile trails in houghton and ontonagon counties in the upper peninsula of michigan.
To support the development and maintenance of non-motorized pathways throughout the great lakes bay region.
Promote health through skiing
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Foundation of Marquette County and the most unlike its peers is Tri-County Safe Harbor 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 42 years old; the field is 24. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 14% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 6% 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.
17 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. 17 of the 63 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 Michigan Tech Fund ↗
- Who funds MARQUETTE CITY BAND INC ↗
- Who funds PREGNANCY SERVICES OF DELTA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds TRI-COUNTY SAFE HARBOR INC ↗
- Who funds HANCOCK TRAILS CLUB ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF DELTA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds BAY CLIFF HEALTH CAMP ↗
- Who funds LAKESTATE INDUSTRIES ↗
- Who funds TREES FOR TOMORROW INC ↗
- Who funds BARAGA COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF MARQUETTE COUNTY ↗
- Who funds AQUAFEST INC ↗
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: The Donald and Audrey Anderson Foundation · Edward J Sackerson Charitable Foundation · Robert & Jeanine Dagenais Foundation · Community Foundation of the Upper Peninsula · Superior Health Foundation · The Cleveland-Cliffs Foundation · Community Foundation of Marquette County · West End Health Foundation · Incrediblebank Foundation Inc · Flagstar Foundation Inc · Xcel Energy Foundation · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc
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 John and Melissa Besse Foundation 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 John and Melissa Besse Foundation?
Find your warmest path to John and Melissa Besse 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.