Skip to content

· Private foundation

Kolassa Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$58k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Health$265kAnimals$90kHuman Services$76kReligion$26kArts & Culture$22kFood & Nutrition$16kEducation$3kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$12,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$849k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SHERMAN LAKE YMCA$13,000
CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION$12,500
CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION$12,500
BINDER PARK ZOO$10,000
TIBBITS OPERA FOUNDATION AND ARTS$10,000
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 (FY17–25, $68k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SHERMAN LAKE YMCA: $13k → 12%SHERMAN LAKE YMCA: $10k → 12%SHERMAN LAKE YMCA: $10k → 12%CHARITABLE UNION: $5k → 14%SHERMAN LAKE YMCA: $10k → 12%SHERMAN LAKE YMCA: $5k → 12%CHARITABLE UNION: $5k → 14%SHERMAN LAKE YMCA: $5k → 12%STARR COMMONWEALTH: $5k → 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.
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$436k · 10 repeat orgs$75k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +60% since the first grant, against -55% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
7

Total granted

$436k
$65k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+60%
-55%

Still filing today

40%
14%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 83% 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 ServicesAnimalsArts & CultureOther
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

  • Binder Park Zoological Society Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $90k · revenue +74%
  • Sherman Lake YMCA Outdoor Center
    6× · 2020–2025 · $53k · revenue +60%
  • BB
    Brass Band of Battle Creek
    2× · 2023–2024 · $10k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF OLIVET
    one grant, 2024 · $30k
  • SJ
    ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • SJ
    ST JUDES
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 of the 18 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CLEVELAND CLINIC: $175,000 · OtherCLEVELAND CLINICCLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION: $50,000 · OtherCLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATIONTHE UNIVERSITY OF OLIVET: $30,000 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF OLIVETFOOD BANK OF SC MI: $16,000 · OtherTHE HAVEN OF REST MINISTRIES OF BATTLE CREEK: $16,000 · Other+8 more: $55,500 · Other+8 moreBinder Park Zoological Society Inc: $90,000 · AnimalsBinder Park Zoologi…Sherman Lake YMCA Outdoor Center: $53,000 · Human ServicesSherman Lake YM…CHARITABLE UNION: $10,000 · Human ServicesCHARITABLE UNIO…STARR COMMONWEALTH: $5,000 · Human ServicesSTARR COMMONWEA…Brass Band of Battle Creek: $10,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$342,500Animals$90,000Human Services$68,000Arts & Culture$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBinder Park Zoological Society Inc: $90,000 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetSherman Lake YMCA Outdoor Center: $53,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetBrass Band of Battle Creek: $10,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetCHARITABLE UNION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetSTARR COMMONWEALTH: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 Binder Park Zoological Society Inc ↗
  • Who funds Sherman Lake YMCA Outdoor Center ↗
  • Who funds Brass Band of Battle Creek ↗
  • Who funds CHARITABLE UNION ↗
  • Who funds STARR COMMONWEALTH ↗

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.

Battle Creek Community FoundationMI17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Battle Creek Community Foundation · WK Kellogg Foundation · Feldpausch Foundation · Santo Maria Frank & John Zanetti Foundation · Burnham Family Foundation · Miller Foundation · United Way of South Central Michigan · Consumers Energy Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Kolassa Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kolassa Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 18 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 Kolassa Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph