Skip to content

· Private foundation

Shubeck Monsour Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$69k
Granted FY2025still arriving
22
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
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, FY2020 to 2025.

Education$73kFood & Nutrition$70kHuman Services$66kCivil Rights$20kEnvironment$13kAnimals$13kHealth$13kArts & Culture$11kOther$0
02FY2025 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k20 grants · $49k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
$2,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$405k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WMU FOUNDATION$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
FEEDING AMERICA$6,000
ACLU FOUNDATION OF MICHIGAN$5,000
LOAVES AND FISHES$4,000
FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES$4,000
MINISTRY WITH COMMUNITY$4,000
SALVATION ARMY$4,000
GOODWILL$3,000
GRASS RIVER NATURAL AREA$2,000
VOTERS NOT POLITICIANS EDUCATION FUND$2,000
FATHER FRED FOUNDATION$2,000
HOSPITAL HOSPITALITY HOUSE$2,000
COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS$2,000
WDET$1,500
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–25, $46k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 7% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $2k → 10%THE NIGHT MINISTRY: $1k → 14%THE NIGHT MINISTRY: $1k → 14%THE NIGHT MINISTRY: $1k → 14%GOOD SAMARITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $1k → 9%GOOD SAMARITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $1k → 9%GOOD SAMARITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $1k → 9%GOOD SAMARITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $1k → 9%FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES: $5k → 12%FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES: $5k → 12%FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES: $5k → 12%FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES: $5k → 12%FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES: $4k → 12%FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES: $3k → 12%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$323k · 30 repeat orgs$13k to everyone else

30 repeat relationships: 22 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
11

Total granted

$323k
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+56%

Still filing today

43%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthFood & NutritionHousing & ShelterEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • WM
    WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $60k · revenue +135%
  • FA
    FEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN
    5× · 2021–2025 · $26k · revenue +28%
  • MW
    MINISTRY WITH COMMUNITY INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $17k · revenue +49%

Funded once

  • FA
    FEEDING AMERICA FOOD BANK
    one grant, 2020 · $5k
  • HO
    HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE ELDERLY INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $2k · revenue +32%
  • CC
    CARE COLLECTIVE
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
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
Area Agency On Aging of Western Michigan Inc

Through internal expertise, external partnerships, and advocacy, the area agency on aging of western michigan provides older adults, adults with disabilities, and their caregivers equitable access to services that promote independence and…

Human Services
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
Wisconsin Lutheran Home Ministries Inc

To share christ's love as we serve the spiritual, physical, intellectual and emotional needs of people entrusted to our care and others whose lives we touch.

—
4
Lakeshore Legal Aid

Standing with our neighbors, Lakeshore Legal Aid fights poverty and injustice through advocacy and by providing meaningful and dignified access to the legal system.

Crime & Legal
5
Western Lake Superior Habitat for Humanity

Provide home ownership opportunities to low-income households and make repairs to existing homes for very low-income homeowners.

—
6
Gw Homeless Services of Northern Michigan Inc

The mission of gw homeless services of northern michigan, inc is to provide safe, supportive shelter to individuals experiencing homelessness.the 2023 990 was for 10/1-12/31/23 due to an accounting period change.

Human Services
7
Meals On Wheels Chicago

Our mission is to ensure that Chicago seniors and people with disabilities benefit from nutritious meal programs that improve their quality of life and maximize independence.

Food & Nutrition
8
Washtenaw Housing Alliance

The mission of the washtenaw housing alliance is to end homelessness in our community.

Housing & Shelter
9
Goodwill Industries of South Central Wisconsin Inc

Goodwill of south central wisconsin's mission is to help people in our community to live, work and thrive through housing, employment and supportive services. see schedule o for continuationsupported employment and job skills training are…

Employment
10
Goodwill Industries of Northern Il and Wi Stateline Area Inc

The mission of goodwill is to create opportunities for individuals with barriers to enhance their lives. barriers include physical or mental disabilities, lack of education and job preparation, socio-economic disadvantages, and others.…

—
11
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
12
Western Home Services Inc

To provide management administrative and other supportive services to the related entities.

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Good Samaritan Family Services; the most unlike its peers is Grass River Natural Area 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

17 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. 17 of the 41 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
12/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientFEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN: $26,100 · OtherFEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGANSALVATION ARMY: $20,700 · OtherSALVATION ARMYACLU FOUNDATION OF MICHIGAN: $20,000 · OtherACLU FOUNDATION OF MICHIGANLOAVES AND FISHES: $17,500 · OtherLOAVES AND FISHESEASTER SEALS: $13,000 · OtherEASTER SEALSCOMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS: $10,000 · OtherGOODWILL: $10,000 · OtherHOSPITAL HOSPITALITY HOUSE: $9,500 · OtherWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY: $8,000 · Other+18 more: $34,050 · Other+18 moreWESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $60,000 · EducationWESTERN MICHIGAN UNI…FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES INC: $27,000 · Human ServicesFAMILY & CHILDR…FATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $11,500 · Human ServicesFATHER FRED FOU…GOOD SAMARITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $4,000 · Human ServicesGOOD SAMARITAN …THE NIGHT MINISTRY: $3,000 · Human ServicesTHE NIGHT MINIS…MINISTRY WITH COMMUNITY INC: $17,000 · Food & NutritionThe Friendship Center: $4,006 · Food & NutritionTORCH LAKE PROTECTION ALLIANCE: $5,225 · EnvironmentSPECIALIZED LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC: $2,500 · HealthCARE COLLECTIVE: $1,500 · HealthWEST MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $1,000 · HealthTHE DOE FUND INC: $500 · Housing & ShelterHABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $500 · Housing & Shelter
Other$198,850Education$60,000Human Services$45,500Food & Nutrition$21,006Environment$5,225Health$5,000Housing & Shelter$1,000

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 budgetWESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $60,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES INC: $27,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetFEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN: $26,100 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetMINISTRY WITH COMMUNITY INC: $17,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetFATHER FRED FOUNDATION: $11,500 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTORCH LAKE PROTECTION ALLIANCE: $5,225 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetGRASS RIVER NATURAL AREA INC: $5,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetThe Friendship Center: $4,006 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetGOOD SAMARITAN FAMILY SERVICES: $4,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE NIGHT MINISTRY: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHREE LAKES ASSOCIATION INC: $2,600 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetSPECIALIZED LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC: $2,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetHOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE ELDERLY INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWEST MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLawrence Hall: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DOE FUND INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds FEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN ↗
  • Who funds MINISTRY WITH COMMUNITY INC ↗
  • Who funds FATHER FRED FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds TORCH LAKE PROTECTION ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds GRASS RIVER NATURAL AREA INC ↗
  • Who funds The Friendship Center ↗
  • Who funds GOOD SAMARITAN FAMILY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds THE NIGHT MINISTRY ↗
  • Who funds THREE LAKES ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds SPECIALIZED LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE ELDERLY INC ↗
  • Who funds WEST MICHIGAN CANCER CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Lawrence Hall ↗
  • Who funds THE DOE FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ↗

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.

WK Kellogg FoundationMI14.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: WK Kellogg Foundation · Suzanne Upjohn Delano Parish Foundation · Marvin and Rosalie Okun Foundation · Dorothy U Dalton Foundation Inc · Harold and Grace Upjohn Foundation · Irving S Gilmore Foundation · Grand Traverse Regional Community Foundation · United Way of South Central Michigan · Kalamazoo Community Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · AbbVie 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 Shubeck Monsour Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Shubeck Monsour 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%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 41 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 Shubeck Monsour’s filings →

    More from the funding graph