· Private foundation
William R Lathers Charitable Trust
Its FY2025 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 FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k7 grants · $24k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| OCEANA CNTY HISTORICAL & GENEALOGY | $10,000 |
| OCEANA CNTY HISTORICAL & GENEALOGY | $10,000 |
| OCEANA CNTY HISTORICAL & GENEALOGY | $7,000 |
| OCEANA CNTY HISTORICAL & GENEALOGY | $5,000 |
| OCEANA CNTY HISTORICAL & GENEALOGY | $4,000 |
| LUDINGTON SCHOOLS RESOURCE CENTER | $3,000 |
| OCEANA MASON COUNTY INMATE & | $2,500 |
| ALZHEIMERS DISEASE RESEARCH | $1,000 |
| AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY | $1,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY19–24, $98k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 83% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +31% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.
26 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 22 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 45% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $51k 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
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC4× · 2019–2023 · $37k · revenue +79%- FAFEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN3× · 2022–2024 · $26k · revenue +27%
- LDLEADER DOGS FOR THE BLIND6× · 2019–2024 · $23k · revenue +4%
Funded once
- OCOCEANA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGINGgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $35k · revenue +32%
- GTGOLDEN TOWNSHIPone grant, 2019 · $25k
- OOCHGSone grant, 2022 · $23k
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.
To serve our communities by provding innovative and compassionate healthcare.
To provide exceptional healthcare services in a safe and trustful environment through the expertise, committment, and compassion of our family of caregivers.
Arbor research collaborative for health is committed to improving patient care through research that shapes medical policies and practice. in particular, arbor research conducts health outcomes research on chronic disease and end-stage…
Hospice of Michigan, Inc. meets our patients and families where they are with urgency, purpose and compassionate accountability surrounding them with decades of dedicated hospice expertise.
Assisting the community mental health boards of michigan in developing methods for mental health planning, care and treatment.
The mission of leadingage is to be the trusted voice for aging. our 6,000+ members and partners include nonprofit organizations representing the entire field of aging services, 38 state associations, hundreds of businesses, consumer…
The organization provides medical care to improve, maintain, and restore the health of the people in the communities we serve.
Building a movement of diverse, upwardly mobile college grads overcoming underemployment through digital skills and peer connections.
Providing innovative and life-enriching services for children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities.
We exist to serve our patients with compassionate health care of the highest quality.
Midwest dairy works with others to give consumers an excellent dairy experience increasing sales, fostering innovation, and inspiring consumer confidence of dairy products and practices.
Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Harbor Hospice Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Ladder Community Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 44 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 4% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
22 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. 22 of the 59 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 MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds OCEANA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
- Who funds FEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds LEADER DOGS FOR THE BLIND ↗
- Who funds ST JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds WELL HOUSE ↗
- Who funds LADDER INC ↗
- Who funds DEGAGE MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds University of Michigan ↗
- Who funds LOVE INC ↗
- Who funds AARP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MAYO CLINIC ↗
- Who funds HARBOR HOSPICE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE LADDER COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
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: Community Foundation for Muskegon County · Community Foundation for Oceana County · Consumers Energy Foundation · Grand Haven Area Community Foundation Inc · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 William R Lathers Charitable Trust 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.