Skip to content
Otsego Community Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Community foundation

Otsego Community Foundation

Activate generosity for a strong community.

$1.7M
Granted FY2024still arriving
19
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1.2M
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 2024.

Education$2.0MHousing & Shelter$926kPhilanthropy$287kRecreation & Sports$178kPublic Safety & Disaster$136kHuman Services$125kHealth$120kFood & Nutrition$58kOther$0
02FY2024 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 19 grants below total $1,487,811, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,664,363 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $176,552 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k9 grants · $58k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $110k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $151k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.2M
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OTSEGO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASSOCIATION$1,168,858
OTSEGO-ANTRIM COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$78,841
OTSEGO COUNTY UNITED WAY$72,000
GAYLORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS$26,020
OTSEGO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING$20,000
OTSEGO COUNTY SPORTSPLEX$19,500
NORTHERN FAMILY INTERVENTION SERVICES INC$12,000
CITY OF GAYLORD$11,500
THE REFUGE IN OTSEGO COUNTY$11,100
COMMUNITY MEDIATION SERVICES$10,000
THE SALVATION ARMY GREAT LAKES DIVISION$9,100
WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN$7,000
OTSEGO COUNTY FOOD PANTRY$6,500
GAYLORD GATORS INC$6,477
JOHANNESBURG-LEWISTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT$6,415
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 (FY19–24, $38k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC: $15k → 9%WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC: $11k → 9%WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN: $7k → 9%WELLSPRING LUTHERAN SERVICES: $5k → 11%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.7M · 23 repeat orgs$320k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against +11% for those funded once.

23 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
16

Total granted

$3.7M
$276k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
+11%

Still filing today

70%
31%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $44k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesEnvironmentRecreation & SportsEducationHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther
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

  • OC
    OTSEGO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASSOCIATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $1.8M · revenue +159% · 66% of their budget
  • OC
    OTSEGO COUNTY UNITED WAY INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $268k · revenue +32% · 27% of their budget
  • OC
    OTSEGO COUNTY SPORTSPLEX
    7× · 2017–2024 · $134k · revenue +51%

Funded once

  • MD
    MICHIGAN DISASTER RECOVERY AND RESPONSE
    one grant, 2022 · $85k
  • OC
    OTSEGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $53k
  • HP
    HURON PINES RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC
    one grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue -17%
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
Northern Oswego County Health Services Inc

To provide the community with quality healthcare and promote the wellness of the community.

Health
2
Oswego County Opportunities Inc

To inspire partnerships and provide services that empower people, support communities and change lives.

Human Services
3
Otsego 2000 Inc

Otsego 2000 celebrates, protects, and enhances the environmental, agricultural, cultural, scenic, and historic significance of the greater otsego lake region. as a 'first responder' on environmental, sustainability, and community issues…

—
4
Oscoda County Council On Aging

Organized exclusively to plan, operate and coordinate programs, public and private, to promote and safeguard the independence, care, well-being, and security for senior citizens and elderly in oscoda county, michigan.

—
5
Midmichigan Health Services

To provide high quality community-oriented, patient-centered health services for all.

Health
6
Cooperstown Food Pantry Inc

The mission of the cooperstown food pantry is to address issues of poverty and hunger in otsego county.

Food & Nutrition
7
Oconto County Economic Development Corporation

Stimulate development of the local economy, provide support to existing and prospective employers, serve as a professional resource to local units of government and promote tourism opportunities within oconto county wisconsin.

Community Improvement
8
The Children's Center of Oswego Inc

To provide high quality child care.

Human Services
9
211 Northeast Michigan

To provide Northeast Michigan with referrals and information to assist with essential needs.

Community Improvement
10
Otsego Rural Housing Assistance Inc

To address the housing needs of low and moderate income residents of otsego county and to assest in improving housing and related retail and service establishments in rural communities within the county

—
11
Oceana County Housing Commission Nonprofit Corporation

The purpose of the oceana county housing commission nonprofit corporation is to provide decent, safe, affordable, and sanitary housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents of oceana county, michigan. the oceana county…

Housing & Shelter
12
Owasco Lake Watershed Management Council Inc

To coordinate actions for protecting and restoring the health of owasco lake and its watershed to ensure that owasco lake will serve as a source of public drinking water, a recreational asset, an economic driver, and an important natural…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Otsego County Commission On Aging; the most unlike its peers is Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc. 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

26 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. 26 of the 43 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/26
Grantees still filing
19/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OTSEGO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASSOCIATION: $1,786,105 · EducationOTSEGO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONOTSEGO COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $739,709 · OtherOTSEGO COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INCGAYLORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: $174,437 · OtherGAYLORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLSMICHIGAN DISASTER RECOVERY AND RESPONSE: $85,000 · OtherMICHIGAN DISASTER RECOVERY AND RESPONSEMUNSON HEALTHCARE OTSEGO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $64,439 · OtherOTSEGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $52,791 · Other+27 more: $393,354 · Other+27 moreOTSEGO COUNTY UNITED WAY INC: $267,538 · PhilanthropyOTSEGO COUNTY SPORTSPLEX: $134,088 · Human ServicesVETERANS EDUCATION TRAINING & SUPPORT INC: $57,879 · Human ServicesWomens Resource Center of Northern Michigan Inc: $32,510 · Human Services+1 more: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE REFUGE IN OTSEGO COUNTY: $143,700 · Housing & ShelterOTSEGO COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY: $57,940 · Food & NutritionHURON PINES RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $30,000 · EnvironmentHEADWATERS LAND CONSERVANCY: $13,000 · EnvironmentOTSEGO COUNTY ECONOMIC ALLIANCE INC: $10,000 · Environment
Education$1,786,105Other$1,509,730Philanthropy$267,538Human Services$229,477Housing & Shelter$143,700Food & Nutrition$57,940Environment$53,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOTSEGO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASSOCIATION: $1,786,105 over 2y, 66% of budgetOTSEGO COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $739,709 over 3y, 67% of budgetOTSEGO COUNTY UNITED WAY INC: $267,538 over 6y, 27% of budgetTHE REFUGE IN OTSEGO COUNTY: $143,700 over 3y, 69% of budgetOTSEGO COUNTY SPORTSPLEX: $134,088 over 7y, 2.7% of budgetMUNSON HEALTHCARE OTSEGO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION: $64,439 over 4y, 4.7% of budgetOTSEGO COUNTY COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY: $57,940 over 3y, 17% of budgetVETERANS EDUCATION TRAINING & SUPPORT INC: $57,879 over 2y, 6.6% of budgetGAYLORD AREA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS: $44,172 over 3y, 6.6% of budgetWomens Resource Center of Northern Michigan Inc: $32,510 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetHURON PINES RESOURCE CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetPOWER BOOK BAGS: $28,425 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetOTSEGO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING: $20,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetLITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL INC: $16,024 over 2y, 28% of budgetCOMMUNITY MEDIATION: $16,000 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetHEADWATERS LAND CONSERVANCY: $13,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetCROSSROADS MINISTRIES INC DBA NEW LIFE PREGNANCY: $12,141 over 2y, 3.1% of budgetNORTHERN FAMILY INTERVENTION SERVICES INC: $12,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMCLAREN NORTHERN MICHIGAN FOUNDATION: $11,300 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOTSEGO COUNTY HOCKEY ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 2y, 7.5% of budgetOTSEGO COUNTY ECONOMIC ALLIANCE INC: $10,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetCROSSROADS INDUSTRIES INC: $8,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetGAYLORD SOCCER LEAGUE INC: $6,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetJUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKIRTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOUNDATION: $5,500 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetLUTHERAN CHILD & FAMILY SERVICE OF MICHIGAN INC: $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.

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.

Consumers Energy Foun…DTE Energy FoundationPetoskey-Harbor Sprin…Orsa FoundationOtsego County United …Edward Jones Foundati…Charities Aid Foundat…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Consumers Energy FoundationMI22.6× affinity9 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Consumers Energy Foundation · DTE Energy Foundation · Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation · Orsa Foundation · Otsego County United Way Inc · Edward Jones Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 Otsego Community Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Otsego Community Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%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 · 0–50%
    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 43 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 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 Otsego’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