· Private foundation
The Summers Foundation Inc
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HARBOR SPRINGS SCHOOL SYSTEM | $3,068 |
| LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOC | $1,749 |
| CHALLENGE MOUNTAIN | $1,509 |
| LITTLE TRAVERSE CONSERVANCY | $1,449 |
| BISSELL PET FOUNDATION | $1,237 |
| HOLY CHILDHOOD CHURCH | $1,200 |
| RISING HOPE | $1,025 |
| TOPONEXUS-CENTER FOR LEARN LOCAL | $1,000 |
| LAKEVIEW CEMETERY | $800 |
| HARBOR SPRINGS LYRIC THEATRE | $750 |
| WOMENS RESOURCE CENTER | $749 |
| BLISSFEST MUSIC ORGANIZATION | $678 |
| HARBOR SPRINGS FOOD PANTRY | $500 |
| HARBOR SPRINGS HISTORICAL SOCIETY | $300 |
| Individual grant recipient | $259 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 11% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +74% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.
24 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- LTLITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOCIETY8× · 2017–2024 · $43k · revenue +263%
- BPBISSELL Pet Foundation8× · 2017–2024 · $6k · revenue +137%
- EFELS FOR AUTISM FOUNDATION2× · 2022–2023 · $5k · revenue +74%
Funded once
- SDSTVINCENT DE PAULone grant, 2023 · $3k
- SOSOCIETY OF AMERICAN MILITARY ENGINEone grant, 2022 · $1k
- SIST ISIDORE THE FARMER CATHOLICone grant, 2017 · $1k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
I) lessening the burdens of government and improving the environment by reducing fuel emissions by providing a ferry service between the cities of petoskey and harbor springs; (ii) providing access to the great lakes that otherwise may not…
To protect scenic and natural lands in northern 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…
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.
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…
The mission of gtrlc is to protect significant natural, scenic and farm lands and advance land stewardship now and for future generations.
FLSP was established May 25, 1992 and functions privately, as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, to promote the wise use and conservation of the Ludington State Park, one of the most beautiful state parks ever.
Animal shelter - provide a safe haven for animals without homes.
Our mission is to provide an adoption-friendly animal shelter that will unify the community toward a common goal of responsible animal treatment and increased animal adoptions to design and incorporate new education and public programs…
To provide services for abandoned, stray or unwanted animals while they await life long homes. our vision is that all animals are cared for with dignity and respect.
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…
Safeguard southern michigan's land and water to support diverse, resilient, and thriving communities - forever
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Harbor Springs Lyric Theatre and the most unlike its peers is Bissell Pet Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 47 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds BISSELL Pet Foundation ↗
- Who funds ELS FOR AUTISM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LITTLE TRAVERSE SAILORS ↗
- Who funds Little Traverse Conservancy Inc ↗
- Who funds HAMMERHEAD SWIM CLUB ↗
- Who funds Harbor Springs Library ↗
- Who funds CHALLENGE MOUNTAIN OF WALLOON HILLS INC ↗
- Who funds HARBOR HALL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds RHONDA'S KISS ↗
- Who funds TIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds HARBOR SPRINGS LYRIC THEATRE ↗
- Who funds BLISSFEST MUSIC ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds VETS RETURNING HOME INC ↗
- Who funds Great Lakes Center for the Arts ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation · The Offield Family Foundation · Frey Foundation · Patricia Miller Anton and William Conrad Anton Foundation · Henry E & Consuelo S Wenger Foundation Inc · Triford Foundation · The James Family Charitable Foundation · Charles Stewart Mott Foundation · Mps Foundation · Steve & Amy Van Andel Foundation · Oleson Foundation · Farmer Family Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Summers Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to The Summers Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to The Summers Foundation Inc 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.