Skip to content

· Private foundation

Mps Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$200k
Granted FY2025still arriving
25
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$45k
Largest
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Environment$607kAnimals$379kHealth$253kEducation$78kArts & Culture$61kYouth Development$60kCivil Rights$38kHousing & Shelter$25kOther$0
02FY2025 · 25 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k18 grants · $39k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $162k
$2,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$2.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LAKE SUPERIOR CONSERVANCY & WATERSHED COUNCIL$45,000
MCLAREN NORTHERN MI HOSPITAL FOUNDATION$25,000
ANN'S NEST$25,000
MSRW (MAC STRAITS RAPTOR WATCH)$24,000
LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOCIETY$17,500
LITTLE TRAVERSE CONSERVANCY$15,000
NO CENTRAL MI COLLEGE FOUNDATION$10,000
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION$8,000
ALLEN BASS FUND$6,000
HARBOR SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY$5,000
RISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER$5,000
HARBOR SPRINGS COMM FOOD PANTRY$3,500
PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MI FOUNDATION$2,000
HARBOR HALL FOUNDATION$2,000
TIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL$2,000
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 (FY23–25, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, 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%RISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $5k → 9%RISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $5k → 9%RISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $5k → 9%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 32 repeat orgs$29k to everyone else

32 repeat relationships: 22 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

32
1

Total granted

$1.6M
$100

Still filing today

44%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k 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
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterEducationOther
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

  • LT
    Little Traverse Conservancy Inc
    9× · 2017–2025 · $162k · revenue +95%
  • LT
    LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOCIETY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $147k · revenue +263%
  • NW
    NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $68k · revenue +72%

Funded once

  • FT
    FIRST TEE OF NORTHERN MI
    one grant, 2018 · $100
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
Little Traverse Conservancy Conservation Trust

To protect scenic and natural lands in northern Michigan.

—
2
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
3
Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources

The coalition to protect michigan resources's mission is to be a strong voice for the equitable co-management of michigan's fisheries, with both the great lakes and inland lakes and streams, to insure that conservation principles remain in…

Environment
4
Heart of the Lakes Ctr for Land Cons

Heart of the Lakes provides technical assistance, leadership training, and strategic communication tools that help organizations thrive - from grassroots land conservancies to larger regional conservation groups. Programs such as peer…

Environment
5
Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc

It is our mission at huron pines to conserve and enhance northern michigan's natural resources to ensure healthy water, protected places and vibrant communities. for alomst 50 years, our work across the forests, lakes and streams of…

Environment
6
The Little Forks Conservancy Inc

To permanently protect and improve natural environments in Mid-Michigan by leading and inspiring actions that conserve vital habitats and waterways for the benefit of our entire community.

Environment
7
Fund for Lake Michigan Inc

Lake Michigan is one of Wisconsin's greatest assets, and its water is critical to the state's future. The Fund for Lake Michigan is here to help sustain the Lake on behalf of the people and places that depend on it. Our goal is to have a…

Environment
8
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
9
Higgins Lake Land Conservancy

Acquire and otherwise manage conservation of lands within the watershed of Higgins Lake

Environment
10
East Michigan Environmental Action Council Inc

To protect and restore land, air, water, and diversity of life through informed personal and public action.

Environment
11
Legacy Land Conservancy

Safeguard southern michigan's land and water to support diverse, resilient, and thriving communities - forever

Environment
12
Michigan Animal Health Foundation

To provide financial assistance to individuals and institutions for educational and scientific purposes in order to advance science to benefit the health and welfare of animals.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is National Wildlife Federation. 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

16 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. 16 of the 36 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
12/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LAKE SUPERIOR CONSERVANCY & WATERSHED COUNCIL: $411,000 · OtherLAKE SUPERIOR CONSERVANCY & WATERSHED COUNCILMCLAREN NORTHERN MI HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $235,000 · OtherMCLAREN NORTHERN MI HOSPITAL FOUNDATIONMSRW (MAC STRAITS RAPTOR WATCH): $154,500 · OtherMSRW (MAC STRAITS RAPTOR WATCH)Individual grant recipient: $75,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientAllen-Bass Fund Inc: $59,000 · OtherNO CENTRAL MI COLLEGE FOUNDATION (GARDEN PARTY FOUNDATION): $58,100 · OtherPROTECTION OF RIGHTS ALLIANCE FUND: $38,000 · Other+17 more: $89,000 · Other+17 moreLITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOCIETY: $146,500 · AnimalsLITTLE TRAVERSE…NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $68,000 · AnimalsNATIONAL WILDLI…ADOPT A GOLDEN BIRMINGHAM INC: $8,200 · AnimalsLittle Traverse Conservancy Inc: $162,000 · EnvironmentLittle Traver…TIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL: $22,000 · EnvironmentTIP OF THE MI…+2 more: $7,500 · EnvironmentHARBOR SPRINGS AREA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $57,700 · Arts & CultureGreat Lakes Center for the Arts: $3,000 · Arts & CultureANNS NEST: $25,000 · Housing & ShelterPETOSKEY-HARBOR SPRINGS AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $22,500 · PhilanthropyNORTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Education
Other$1,120,100Animals$222,700Environment$191,500Arts & Culture$60,700Housing & Shelter$25,000Philanthropy$22,500Education$20,000

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 budgetLittle Traverse Conservancy Inc: $162,000 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetLITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOCIETY: $146,500 over 9y, 1.0% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $68,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetAllen-Bass Fund Inc: $59,000 over 9y, 35% of budgetHARBOR SPRINGS AREA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $57,700 over 9y, 2.5% of budgetPETOSKEY-HARBOR SPRINGS AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $22,500 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetTIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL: $22,000 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetNORTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetRISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $15,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetUniversity of Michigan: $10,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetADOPT A GOLDEN BIRMINGHAM INC: $8,200 over 8y, 1.2% of budgetHARBOR HALL FOUNDATION: $7,500 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetGreat Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc: $4,500 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetMICHIGAN ENVIROMENTAL COUNCIL: $3,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetGreat Lakes Center for the Arts: $3,000 over 6y, 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 Little Traverse Conservancy Inc ↗
  • Who funds LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds Allen-Bass Fund Inc ↗
  • Who funds HARBOR SPRINGS AREA HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds ANNS NEST ↗
  • Who funds PETOSKEY-HARBOR SPRINGS AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds RISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER ↗
  • Who funds University of Michigan ↗
  • Who funds ADOPT A GOLDEN BIRMINGHAM INC ↗
  • Who funds HARBOR HALL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN ENVIROMENTAL COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds Great Lakes Center for the Arts ↗

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.

Triford FoundationMI24.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Triford Foundation · Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation · Frey Foundation · Charles Stewart Mott Foundation · Tom and Ellen Noneman Foundation Co Plante Moran Trust · The Offield Family Foundation · Affordable Housing Management Foundation · Fabiano Foundation · Oleson Foundation · Collier Community Foundation Inc · The Summers Foundation Inc · The Kent 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 Mps Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mps Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report 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.

    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 36 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 Mps’ filings →

    More from the funding graph