Skip to content
Marieluise Hessel Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Marieluise Hessel Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$539k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$520k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Arts & Culture$34MPhilanthropy$11kHealth$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $9k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $250k+1 grant · $520k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$44M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES$520,000
JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION$10,000
ARTTABLE$5,000
RED HOOK RESPONDS INC$3,000
PARK AVENUE ARMORY$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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ROSE ART MUSEUM AT BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: $5k → 8%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $26.1M → 9%THE ASCIENZO FAMILY FOUNDATION: $2k → 16%PERFORMA: $1k → 17%JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION: $10k → 11%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $1.7M → 9%WHITE COLUMNS INC: $5k → 17%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $1.7M → 9%ARTTABLE: $5k → 17%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $1.2M → 9%STUDIO MUSEUM IN HARLEM: $1k → 17%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $1.1M → 9%STUDIO MUSEUM IN HARLEM: $1k → 17%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $784k → 9%SWISS INSTITUTE: $1k → 17%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $645k → 9%PARK AVENUE ARMORY: $500 → 17%BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $520k → 9%THE SOLOMAN R GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM AND FOUNDATION: $5k → 17%RED HOOK RESPONDS INC: $3k → 9%PARTICIPANT INC: $5k → 17%RED HOOK RESPONDS INC: $3k → 9%THE DRAWING CENTER: $5k → 17%RED HOOK RESPONDS INC: $3k → 9%ARTISTS SPACE: $3k → 17%THE DRAWING CENTER: $1k → 17%INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $1k → 17%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$34M · 3 repeat orgs$45k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +31% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
10

Total granted

$34M
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+31%

Still filing today

67%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k 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
Arts & CulturePhilanthropyPublic BenefitOther
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

  • BC
    BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES
    8× · 2017–2024 · $34M
  • RH
    RED HOOK RESPONDS INCORPORATED
    3× · 2022–2024 · $9k · revenue +22%
  • TD
    THE DRAWING CENTER INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $6k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • PI
    PARTICIPANT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +146%
  • WC
    WHITE COLUMNS INC
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -29%
  • RA
    ROSE ART MUSEUM AT BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
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
Kadist Collection Manager Inc
Arts & Culture
2
Berggruen Institute
Education
3
International Contemporary Art Foundatio
Arts & Culture
4
The Neue Galerie New York
Arts & Culture
5
Institute of Contemporary Art Miami Inc

The institute of contemporary art, miami (ica miami), is dedicated to promoting the work of contemporary artists, and to the exchange of art and ideas throughout the miami region and internationally. through an energetic calendar of…

Arts & Culture
6
California Institute of Contemporary Art
—
7
The Florence Center for Contemporary Music
Arts & Culture
8
Artpace Inc (Audit)

Artpace san antonio is a nonprofit residency program which supports texas, national, and international artists in the creation of new art. see schedule o for continuation.

Arts & Culture
9
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

See schedule osfmoma believes the art of our time is vital and shares it with passion and purpose, and that art and the creative process can open minds and help build a better world. for that reason, we assemble unparalleled collections,…

Arts & Culture
10
Museum of the City of New York

The museum of the city of new york fosters understanding of the distinctive nature of urban life in the world's most influential metropolis. it engages visitors by celebrating, documenting, and interpreting the city's past, present, and…

Arts & Culture
11
Matthew and Iris Strauss Family Foundation Inc
Arts & Culture
12
The Sculpture Center Inc

See schedule osculpturecenter leads the conversation on contemporary art by supporting artistic innovation and independent thought highlighting sculpture's specific potential to change the way we engage with the world. positioning artists'…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Artists Space Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Ascienzo Family Foundation. 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

12 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. 12 of the 16 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)
12/12
Grantees still filing
9/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES: $33,703,118 · OtherBARD COLLEGE-CENTER FOR CURATORIAL STUDIES+3 more: $10,350 · OtherTHE DRAWING CENTER INC: $6,000 · Arts & CulturePARTICIPANT INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureWHITE COLUMNS INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureARTISTS SPACE INC: $3,000 · Arts & CultureTHE STUDIO MUSEUM IN HARLEM: $2,026 · Arts & CultureINDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $1,000 · Arts & CultureSWISS INSTITUTE: $1,000 · Arts & CulturePERFORMA INC: $1,000 · Arts & CultureJupiter Medical Center Foundation Inc: $10,000 · PhilanthropyRED HOOK RESPONDS INCORPORATED: $9,000 · PhilanthropyTHE ASCIENZO FAMILY FOUNDATION: $2,000 · PhilanthropyARTTABLE INC: $5,000 · Public Benefit
Other$33,713,468Arts & Culture$24,026Philanthropy$21,000Public Benefit$5,000

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 budgetJupiter Medical Center Foundation Inc: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRED HOOK RESPONDS INCORPORATED: $9,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetTHE DRAWING CENTER INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPARTICIPANT INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetWHITE COLUMNS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetARTTABLE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetARTISTS SPACE INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE STUDIO MUSEUM IN HARLEM: $2,026 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ASCIENZO FAMILY FOUNDATION: $2,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetINDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSWISS INSTITUTE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPERFORMA INC: $1,000 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.

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.

The Andy Warhol Found…Via Art Fund IncArison Arts FoundationThe Judelson Family F…Ag FoundationNational Philanthropi…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts IncNY17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc · Via Art Fund Inc · Arison Arts Foundation · The Judelson Family Foundation · Ag Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Marieluise Hessel Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Marieluise Hessel Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%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
    1get 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.

    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 16 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 Marieluise Hessel’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