Skip to content
The Young Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Young Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$562k
Granted FY2025still arriving
19
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$300k
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 2025.

Human Services$1.0MEducation$300kFood & Nutrition$255kReligion$233kHousing & Shelter$181kCrime & Legal$116kCommunity Improvement$75kYouth Development$38kOther$0
02FY2025 · 19 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $27k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $235k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OAKLAND UNIVERSITY$300,000
GLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK SE MI$25,000
LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY$25,000
POWER COMPANY KIDS CLUB$25,000
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE$25,000
OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES$25,000
HOPE WAMING CENTER AND RECUPERATIVE SHELTER$25,000
MICAH 6 COMMUNITY$20,000
BALDWIN CENTER$20,000
CARE HOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY$15,000
THE SALVATION ARMY$15,000
GRACE CENTERS OF HOPE$15,000
FURNITURE BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MI$5,000
THE NEW FOSTER CARE$5,000
HAVEN$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 (FY17–25, $545k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $30k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $30k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $25k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $25k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $25k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $25k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $25k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $25k → 8%OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $25k → 8%ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $30k → 8%ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $25k → 8%ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $25k → 8%ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $25k → 8%ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $25k → 8%ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $20k → 8%ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $20k → 8%NAMI METRO (NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL HEALTH): $5k → 8%NAMI METRO (NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL HEALTH): $5k → 8%NAMI METRO (NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL HEALTH): $5k → 8%NAMI METRO (NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL HEALTH): $5k → 8%NAMI METRO (NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL HEALTH): $5k → 8%BALDWIN CENTER: $25k → 8%BALDWIN CENTER: $20k → 8%BALDWIN CENTER: $20k → 8%BALDWIN CENTER: $15k → 8%BALDWIN CENTER: $15k → 8%BALDWIN CENTER: $15k → 8%THE NEW FOSTER CARE: $5k → 8%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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.0M · 27 repeat orgs$315k to everyone else

27 repeat relationships: 17 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

27
2

Total granted

$2.0M
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+392%

Still filing today

63%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $305k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterCrime & LegalCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentHealthOther
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

  • OF
    OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES
    9× · 2017–2025 · $235k · revenue +11%
  • TP
    THE POWER COMPANY KIDS CLUB
    9× · 2017–2025 · $178k · revenue +1%
  • RA
    ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE
    7× · 2017–2023 · $170k · revenue +104%

Funded once

  • SO
    SOUTH OAKLAND SHELTERgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $5k · revenue +392%
  • MH
    MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
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
Community & Home Supports Inc

Community & home supports, inc. was founded to help people and communities address poverty and homelessness. we strive to fulfill our purpose by developing, leading, and participating in collaborative and innovative efforts that support…

Human Services
2
Housing Services of Mid Michigan

To assist people with low or moderate income to obtain safe and affordable housing

Housing & Shelter
3
Habitat for Humanity of Oakland County Inc

Seeking to put God's love into action, Habitat for Humanity of Oakland County brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.

—
4
Ozone House Inc

Ozone house provides holistic support and housing services that enhance the well-being and safety of young people through empowerment, advocacy, and connection.

Human Services
5
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.

—
6
Michigan Christian Home

The michigan christian home dba beacon hill at eastgate, a not-for-profit corporation, provides housing and health services in a christian environment for older adults, thus enabling them to meet their ongoing physical, social and…

—
7
Michigan Assoc of Community Mental Health Boards

Assisting the community mental health boards of michigan in developing methods for mental health planning, care and treatment.

—
8
Michigan Family Resources

Michigan Family Resources mission is to deliver holistic family-centered services to children that promote their well-being and development.

Education
9
Caring House Inc

To promote a violence free atmosphere from domestic and sexual violence in which survivors can recognize their options to have the opportunity to continue living violence free and regain their sense of self-worth; to educate and raise…

Human Services
10
Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County

Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County D/B/A Catholic Charities Washtenaw County provides diverse, holistic social services including adoption and pregnancy counseling, food and basic needs assistance, domestic and child abuse…

—
11
Association for Children's Mental Health

To ensure all michigan children and youth with emotional, behavioral, or mental health challenges and their families live in a safe, welcoming community with access to needed services and supports.

Health
12
Detroit Central City Cmh Inc

Detroit central city community mental health's mission is to achieve wellness in the community by providing an integrated array of mental health, housing and substance abuse services with diginity and respect.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lighthouse of Oakland County; the most unlike its peers is Nami Metro. 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

19 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. 19 of the 31 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
13/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY: $300,000 · OtherOAKLAND UNIVERSITYGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK SE MI: $255,000 · OtherGLEANERS COMMUNITY FOOD BANK SE MIGRACE CENTERS OF HOPE: $100,000 · OtherGRACE CENTERS OF HOPEHOPE WAMING CENTER AND RECUPERATIVE SHELTER: $100,000 · OtherHOPE WAMING CENTER AND RECUPERATIVE SHELTERSALVATION ARMY: $85,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMYFURNITURE BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MI: $78,500 · OtherFURNITURE BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN MIBALDWIN CHURCH AND CENTER: $55,000 · OtherNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $50,000 · Other+8 more: $95,400 · Other+8 moreOAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $235,000 · Human ServicesOAKLAND FAMILY SERVICESROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $170,000 · Human ServicesROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSELIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $160,000 · Human ServicesLIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTYTHE BALDWIN CENTER INC: $110,000 · Human ServicesTHE BALDWIN CENTER INCNAMI METRO: $25,000 · Human Services+1 more: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE POWER COMPANY KIDS CLUB: $178,000 · Youth DevelopmentCAREHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY INC: $91,000 · Crime & LegalHAVEN INC: $25,000 · Crime & LegalMICAH 6 COMMUNITY: $75,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC: $20,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMON GROUND: $70,600 · HealthBEDS 4 KIDS: $12,000 · Housing & ShelterSOUTH OAKLAND CITIZENS FOR THE HOMELESS: $6,000 · Housing & ShelterSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $5,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$1,118,900Human Services$705,000Youth Development$178,000Crime & Legal$116,000Community Improvement$95,000Health$70,600Housing & Shelter$23,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES: $235,000 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetTHE POWER COMPANY KIDS CLUB: $178,000 over 9y, 2.1% of budgetROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE: $170,000 over 7y, 1.8% of budgetLIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $160,000 over 9y, 45% of budgetTHE BALDWIN CENTER INC: $110,000 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetGRACE CENTERS OF HOPE: $100,000 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetCAREHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY INC: $91,000 over 9y, 0.6% of budgetMICAH 6 COMMUNITY: $75,000 over 5y, 1.2% of budgetCOMMON GROUND: $70,600 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNAMI METRO: $25,000 over 5y, 3.8% of budgetHAVEN INC: $25,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCOUNCIL OF MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONS: $16,400 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetBEDS 4 KIDS: $12,000 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetAFFIRMATIONS COMMUNITY CENTER: $10,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetSOUTH OAKLAND CITIZENS FOR THE HOMELESS: $6,000 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetHURON-CLINTON METROPARKS FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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 OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds THE POWER COMPANY KIDS CLUB ↗
  • Who funds ROCHESTER AREA NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ↗
  • Who funds LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds THE BALDWIN CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds GRACE CENTERS OF HOPE ↗
  • Who funds CAREHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds MICAH 6 COMMUNITY ↗
  • Who funds COMMON GROUND ↗
  • Who funds NAMI METRO ↗
  • Who funds HAVEN INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONS ↗
  • Who funds BEDS 4 KIDS ↗
  • Who funds AFFIRMATIONS COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH OAKLAND CITIZENS FOR THE HOMELESS ↗
  • Who funds HURON-CLINTON METROPARKS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER ↗
  • Who funds THE NEW FOSTER CARE ↗

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 …United Way for Southe…Phillip and Elizabeth…DTE Energy FoundationConsumers Energy Foun…Alliance for Housing …The Jewish FundEagles for ChildrenEthel and James Flinn…Michigan Health Endow…Raymond James Charita…The Carls Foundation
Community Foundation for Southeast MichiganMI33× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Phillip and Elizabeth Filmer Memorial · DTE Energy Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Alliance for Housing Oakland County Continuum of Care · The Jewish Fund · Eagles for Children · Ethel and James Flinn Foundation · Michigan Health Endowment Fund · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · The Carls 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 Young Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Young Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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
    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 · 0–50%
    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 31 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 Young’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