Skip to content
Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander 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.

$1.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
17
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Health$9.9MEmployment$4.9MYouth Development$4.1MHuman Services$3.7MPhilanthropy$228kFood & Nutrition$133kEducation$123kReligion$87kOther$0
02FY2024 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $122k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $275k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LACASA$1,000,000
CHADTOUGH DEFEAT DIPG FOUNDATION$100,000
FUND A LIFE NFP$100,000
THE IVY TABLE$75,000
HARVEST FOODS INC$22,000
CLEARY UNIVERSITY$20,000
THE SALVATION ARMY GREAT LAKES DIVISION$20,000
LOVE INCOF THE GREATER LIVINGSTON AREA$20,000
RAVEN HILL DISCOVERY CENTER$10,000
GO-LIV-CO HORAL FAMILY FOUNDATION$10,000
RHONDA WALKER FOUNDATION$10,000
THE LARRY PROUT JR (THE BEAR) COURAGE FUND$10,000
LIVINGSTON ARTS COUNCIL$5,000
LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CHARITIES$5,000
THE WELL CHURCH$5,000
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 (FY18–24, $735k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 7% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%RISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $5k → 9%RISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $5k → 9%OAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $10k → 8%CHADTOUGH DEFEAT DIPG FOUNDATION: $100k → 9%YATOOMA'S FOUNDATION FOR THE KIDS: $8k → 8%CHADTOUGH DEFEAT DIPG FOUNDATION: $25k → 9%YATOOMA'S FOUNDATION FOR THE KIDS INC: $25k → 8%CHADTOUGH DEFEAT DIPG FOUNDATION: $10k → 9%OAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $5k → 8%THE CHADTOUGH FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%YATOOMA'S FOUNDATION FOR THE KIDS: $5k → 8%CHADTOUGH DEFEAT DIPG FOUNDATION: $5k → 9%THE CHADTOUGH FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%YATOOMA'S FOUNDATION FOR THE KIDS INC: $25k → 8%FAITH IN ACTION INC: $10k → 14%FUND A LIFE NFP: $100k → 5%FUND A LIFE NFP: $100k → 5%FUND A LIFE NFP: $70k → 5%FUND A LIFE NFP: $50k → 5%FUND A LIFE NFP: $25k → 5%FUND A LIFE NFP: $10k → 5%FUND A LIFE NFP: $10k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY FIRST RESPONDERS BENEVOLENT FUND: $3k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY FIRST RESPONDERS BENEVOLENT FUND INC: $50k → 5%LOVE INCOF THE GREATER LIVINGSTON AREA: $20k → 5%LOVE INCOF THE GREATER LIVINGSTON AREA: $10k → 5%LIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $5k → 5%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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$21M · 26 repeat orgs$2.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against +22% for those funded once.

26 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
19

Total granted

$21M
$2.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+22%

Still filing today

85%
53%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $147k 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
Human ServicesEducationHealthPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentFood & NutritionOther
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

  • CU
    CLEARY UNIVERSITY
    6× · 2019–2024 · $4.3M · revenue +81%
  • L
    LACASA
    5× · 2019–2024 · $3.1M · revenue +84%
  • T1
    TORCH 180
    6× · 2018–2023 · $515k · revenue +73% · 55% of their budget

Funded once

  • UO
    University of Michigangraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $1.5M · revenue +88%
  • HF
    HENRY FORD HEALTH PROVIDENCE FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $450k · revenue +119%
  • GH
    GDI HELPING HANDS PROGRAM
    one grant, 2021 · $100k
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
Greater Lansing Destination Development Foundation
Community Improvement
2
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
3
Holland Community Hospital

To continuously improve the health of the communities we serve in the spirit of hope, compassion, respect and dignity.

Health
4
Greater Lansing Food Bank

Partner to alleviate hunger one meal at a time, to create a future where everyone has access to nourishing food.

Food & Nutrition
5
Hospice of Lansing

To provide comprehensive, high quality hospice services to meet medical, nursing, psychosocial, and spiritual needs for individuals facing the last stages of life, as well as emotional care for their families and friends; to conduct…

Health
6
Howell Area Chamber of Commerce

Our mission is to be a catalyst for a vital business environment and an exceptional community.

—
7
Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley

Habitat for humanity of huron valley exists to provide affordable housing to low-income individuals in the greater washtenaw county area.

Housing & Shelter
8
United Memorial Medical Center

United memorial medical center is the only acute care hospital in genesee county, with 131 licensed acute care beds that provide the necessary healthcare services to a regional population of approximately 138,000 residents and operates the…

Health
9
Edward W Sparrow Hospital

Improving the health of the people in our communities by providing quality, compassionate care to everyone, every time.

Health
10
Lakeland Health Foundation Benton Harbor/Stjoseph

Improve health, instill humanity and inspire hope.

Health
11
Severe Weather Network Livingston County

The Severe Weather Network (SWN) partners with community organizations, agencies, and faith communities to provide emergency, overnight refuge during the winter months for people experiencing homelessness in Livingston County. SWN also…

—
12
Livingston Family Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Livingston County Catholic Charities; 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

37 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. 37 of the 52 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
36/37
Grantees still filing
24/37
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $7,500,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANLACASA: $3,090,000 · OtherLACASAUniversity of Michigan: $1,500,000 · OtherUniversity of Michigan+28 more: $643,050 · OtherCLEARY UNIVERSITY: $4,296,000 · EducationCLEARY UNIVERSITY+3 more: $142,500 · EducationNORTH STAR REACH: $4,045,000 · Youth DevelopmentNORTH STAR REACH+1 more: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentFUND A LIFE NFP: $365,000 · Human ServicesCHADTOUGH DEFEAT DIPG FOUNDATION: $185,000 · Human ServicesYATOOMA'S FOUNDATION FOR THE KIDS INC: $62,500 · Human ServicesLIVINGSTON COUNTY FIRST RESPONDERS BENEVOLENT FUND INC: $52,500 · Human ServicesOAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $45,000 · Human ServicesLOVE INC OF THE GREATER LIVINGSTON AREA: $30,000 · Human Services+3 more: $25,000 · Human ServicesHENRY FORD HEALTH PROVIDENCE FOUNDATION: $450,000 · PhilanthropyLIVINGSTON COUNTY UNITED WAY: $222,500 · Philanthropy+1 more: $6,000 · PhilanthropyTORCH 180: $515,000 · EmploymentTHE IVY TABLE INC: $75,000 · Food & NutritionGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN: $30,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$12,733,050Education$4,438,500Youth Development$4,055,000Human Services$765,000Philanthropy$678,500Employment$515,000Food & Nutrition$105,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCLEARY UNIVERSITY: $4,296,000 over 6y, 8.6% of budgetNORTH STAR REACH: $4,045,000 over 5y, 81% of budgetLACASA: $3,090,000 over 5y, 18% of budgetTORCH 180: $515,000 over 6y, 55% of budgetHENRY FORD HEALTH PROVIDENCE FOUNDATION: $450,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetFUND A LIFE NFP: $365,000 over 7y, 31% of budgetLIVINGSTON COUNTY UNITED WAY: $222,500 over 4y, 10% of budgetCHADTOUGH DEFEAT DIPG FOUNDATION: $185,000 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetTHE ARC LIVINGSTON: $132,500 over 5y, 37% of budgetHOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $85,000 over 5y, 39% of budgetTHE IVY TABLE INC: $75,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetYATOOMA'S FOUNDATION FOR THE KIDS INC: $62,500 over 4y, 13% of budgetLIVINGSTON COUNTY FIRST RESPONDERS BENEVOLENT FUND INC: $52,500 over 2y, 58% of budgetOAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $45,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetHOME OF NEW VISION: $40,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetLIVINGSTON ARTS COUNCIL INC: $35,000 over 3y, 17% of budgetHOWELL NATURE CENTER: $30,800 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetRaven Hill Discovery Center: $30,000 over 4y, 2.8% of budgetLOVE INC OF THE GREATER LIVINGSTON AREA: $30,000 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLIVINGSTON SUNRISE ROTARY FOUNDATION: $22,500 over 3y, 76% of budgetLARRY PROUT JR THE BEAR COURAGE FUND: $20,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetAMBER REINECK HOUSE: $17,500 over 3y, 6.3% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetRISING HOPE EQUESTRIAN CENTER: $10,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetFAITH IN ACTION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetRHONDA WALKER FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetALZHEIMER'S DISEASE & RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHURON ROWING ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetHowell Funding Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 13% of budgetHURLEY FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHOWELL MAIN STREET INC: $5,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetLIVINGSTON COUNTY CATHOLIC CHARITIES: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCONSERVATION RESOURCE ALLIANCE: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHOLOCAUST MEMORIAL CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFREEDOM RIVER INC: $2,500 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.

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.

Community Foundation …DTE Energy FoundationPositive Step Foundat…Consumers Energy Foun…Edward and June Kello…Harry a and Margaret …Livingston County Uni…Trinity Health - Mich…The Carls FoundationAnn Arbor Area Commun…United Way for Southe…Ann Arbor Spark
Community Foundation for Southeast MichiganMI28.9× affinity13 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · DTE Energy Foundation · Positive Step Foundation Inc · Consumers Energy Foundation · Edward and June Kellogg Foundation Dba Kellogg Family Foundation · Harry a and Margaret D Towsley Foundation · Livingston County United Way · Trinity Health - Michigan · The Carls Foundation · Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Ann Arbor Spark

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 Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 52 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 Ted and Jane Von Voigtlander’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