Skip to content
The Shyft Group Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Shyft Group Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$62k
Granted FY2022
15
Grants FY2022
4
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

97% of The Shyft Group Foundation’s FY2023 grant dollars went to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2023 names 1 organization directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2022, the last year The Shyft Group Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 12 organizations, $62k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

11
’20
4
’21
12
’22
1
’23

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2023.

Philanthropy$244kHealth$209kHousing & Shelter$33kEducation$13kFood & Nutrition$12kScience & Tech$10kYouth Development$10kCrime & Legal$8kOther$0
02FY2022 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k13 grants · $27k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
$1,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HEAT AND WARMTH FUND$25,000
EATON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY$10,000
WAVERLY ROBOTICS PROGRAM$5,000
CASA FOR KIDS INC$5,000
SIREN-EATON SHELTER INC$2,500
CHARLOTTE FRONTIER DAYS$2,500
THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION FOUNDATION$2,500
SAGINAW VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY$1,500
DAVENPORT UNIVERSITY$1,500
ALFOND YOUTH AND COMMUNITY CENTER$1,500
CHARLOTTE SPORTS FOUNDATION$1,000
OPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION$1,000
R J SCHEFFEL MEMORIAL TOY PROJECT INC$1,000
SPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN INC$1,000
MASON OPTIMIST CLUB$1,000
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 (FY20–20, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%EATON AREA SENIOR CENTER: $3k → 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.

17%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$56k · 12 repeat orgs$272k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against -31% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2022, 4 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call). Read against FY2022, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
15

Total granted

$56k
$229k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
-31%

Still filing today

50%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23
PhilanthropyHealthCivil RightsHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsSocial ScienceOther
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

  • AY
    ALFOND YOUTH & COMMUNITY CENTER
    2× · 2021–2022 · $8k · revenue +34%
  • CF
    Charlotte Frontieer Days Inc
    3× · 2021–2023 · $8k · revenue +62%
  • CF
    CASA FOR KIDS INC
    2× · 2020–2022 · $8k · revenue +84%

Funded once

  • EC
    EATON COMMUNITY HEALTH
    one grant, 2020 · $200k · revenue -75%
  • EC
    Eaton Community Palliative Care
    one grant, 2020 · $9k · revenue -17%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
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
Eaton Rapids Medical Center

Care. serve. inspire.

Health
2
Michigan State Afl-Cio Workforce Development Institute

To apply the principles of workforce development to grow michigan's economy while improving the lives of michigan workers.

Employment
3
Akron-Canton Regional Foodbank

The mission of the akron-canton regional foodbank is to lead a collaborative network that empowers people to experience healthy and hunger-free lives. we distribute food to feed people and we advocate, engage and convene our community in…

Food & Nutrition
4
Mid Michigan Community Action Agency Inc

Mid michigan community action guides local residents on the path to self-sufficiency through empowerment, education and community enrichment.

—
5
Erie Community Foundation

The erie community foundation works to improve the quality of life for all in our region by evaluating and addressing community issues, building permanent charitable endowments, and by promoting philanthropic and community leadership.

Philanthropy
6
Citizens Utility Board of Minnesota

The citizens utility board (cub) of minnesota champions affordable, reliable, safe, and clean home energy for all minnesotans.

Civil Rights
7
Capital Region Community Foundation

The mission of the capital region community foundation is to lead philanthropic solutions that build vibrant communities in ingham, eaton and clinton counties.

Philanthropy
8
Akron Community Foundation

To identify, activate, and support informed and passionate philanthropists who strive to improve the quality of life in our community. we accomplish this by:- building a permanent source of charitable funding- cultivating strategic…

Philanthropy
9
Eaton County Farm Bureau

Form 990, Part III, Line 1 Organizations MissionFarm Bureau is a free independent, non-governmental, voluntary organization of farm families united for the purpose of analyzing their problems and formulating action to achieve educational…

—
10
4FRONT Credit Union

To provide financial services to members with a common bond.

—
11
Allegan County Agricultural Society

The allegan county agricultural society presents various events during the year which provide entertainment, educational and work opportunities for the youth groups such as 4-h.

—
12
Huron County Community Foundation

Receive and Administer funds for the public welfare of the people of Huron County, Michigan

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Eaton Community Health; the most unlike its peers is Charlotte Frontieer Days 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 35 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)
16/17
Grantees still filing
8/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $233,612 · Community ImprovementFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND+1 more: $2,500 · Community ImprovementEATON COMMUNITY HEALTH: $200,000 · HealthEATON COMMUNITY HEALTHTHE HEAT AND WARMTH FUND: $25,000 · OtherTHE HEAT AND WARMTH…Eaton County Agricultural Society: $10,000 · OtherEaton County Agricu…WAVERLY ROBOTICS PROGRAM: $10,000 · OtherWAVERLY ROBOTICS PR…Eaton Community Palliative Care: $8,742 · OtherEaton Community Pal…EATON COUNTY SIREN SHELTER: $5,000 · OtherCHARLOTTE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER: $3,750 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $3,453 · Other+18 more: $30,491 · Other+18 moreCharlotte Frontieer Days Inc: $7,500 · PhilanthropyR J SCHEFFEL MEMORIAL TOY PROJECT INC: $1,250 · PhilanthropyOPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $100 · PhilanthropyALFOND YOUTH & COMMUNITY CENTER: $8,000 · Youth DevelopmentCASA FOR KIDS INC: $7,500 · Civil RightsDAVENPORT UNIVERSITY: $3,000 · Education
Community Improvement$236,112Health$200,000Other$96,436Philanthropy$9,850Youth Development$8,000Civil Rights$7,500Education$3,000

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 budgetFIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND: $233,612 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEATON COMMUNITY HEALTH: $200,000 over 1y, 17% of budgetTHE HEAT AND WARMTH FUND: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEaton County Agricultural Society: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetEaton Community Palliative Care: $8,742 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetALFOND YOUTH & COMMUNITY CENTER: $8,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCharlotte Frontieer Days Inc: $7,500 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetCASA FOR KIDS INC: $7,500 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetDAVENPORT UNIVERSITY: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION FOUNDATIONINC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetEaton Area Senior Center Inc: $2,500 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetSIREN EATON SHELTER: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCapital Area United Way Inc: $1,696 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS MICHIGAN INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetR J SCHEFFEL MEMORIAL TOY PROJECT INC: $1,250 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetOPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION: $1,000 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.

The Blackbaud Giving …The Pfizer Foundation…Charities Aid Foundat…National Philanthropi…Natl Christian Charit…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Blackbaud Giving FundSC10.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · National Philanthropic Trust · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 The Shyft Group Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Shyft Group Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 The Shyft Group Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Shyft Group 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 35 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Shyft Group’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