Skip to content

· Public charity

Alliance for Housing Oakland County Continuum of Care

The corporation is organized to establish a collective response that addresses homelessness and affordable housing in our community.

$2.2M
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1.2M
Largest
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.

Housing & Shelter$75MHuman Services$42MCivil Rights$75kCrime & Legal$8k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $32k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $124k
  • $250k+2 grants · $2.0M
$123,784
Median grant
1
States reached
$356k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
COMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC$1,235,898
LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY$778,412
HOPE$123,784
GIRLS MATTER$20,000
SOUTH OAKLAND CITIZENS FOR THE HOMELESS$12,227
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 (FY17–24, $26.9M) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $16.7M → 8%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $6.2M → 8%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $2.1M → 8%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $778k → 8%HOPE: $282k → 8%HOPE: $177k → 8%HOPE: $155k → 8%HOPE: $124k → 8%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $47k → 8%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $45k → 8%HOPE: $42k → 8%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $41k → 8%LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $41k → 8%HOPE: $40k → 8%HOPE: $37k → 8%HOPE: $37k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$117M · 7 repeat orgs$40k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against -67% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$117M
$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
-67%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $32k 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 ServicesHousing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementHealthCivil RightsYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • COMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $74M · revenue +19% · 75% of their budget
  • OL
    OAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY
    6× · 2017–2023 · $15M · revenue +6% · 26% of their budget
  • HH
    HOPE HOSPITALITY AND WARMING CENTER INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $894k · revenue +39%

Funded once

  • HI
    HAVEN INC
    one grant, 2022 · $8k · revenue -67%
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
Oakland Catholic Worker

The Organization offers transitional housing to Latin American immigrants. Its ministry is based on the practice of solidarity with the poor and disenfranchised.

Human Services
2
Community Human Services Corporation

Chs empowers individuals and families to live in stable housing, connect to community resources, build relationships and access quality food.

Human Services
3
Oakland Elizabeth House

Elizabeth House provides housing and supportive services to women and children.

Housing & Shelter
4
Share

Share believes every person counts. together we pursue a stronger community by building relationships, advocating for equitable access to housing and food stability while empowering every individual to grow and thrive.

—
5
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…

—
6
Midland's Open Door

Midland's Open Door (MOD) operates two crisis shelters, one for women and children and one for men. MOD's programs are designed to meet the immediate needs of homeless individuals by providing a safe and loving environment where each…

—
7
House of Hope Green Bay Inc

House of hope green bay provides a safe and supportive place where youth and young families with children experiencing homelessness will be come confident, independent, and successful members of our community. house of hope envisions a…

—
8
Cchnc South Lake Towers Inc

Operates a 130 unit apartment complex specifically for low and moderate income elderly persons located in oakland, california.

Housing & Shelter
9
The Open Door Network

To stop domestic violence and sexual assault in kern county and assist survivors in reclaiming their lives.

Human Services
10
Oceana County Housing Commission Nonprofit Corporation

The purpose of the oceana county housing commission nonprofit corporation is to provide decent, safe, affordable, and sanitary housing opportunities for low and moderate income residents of oceana county, michigan. the oceana county…

Housing & Shelter
11
Siren Eaton Shelter

Provide shelter for homeless and domestic violence victims

Community Improvement
12
Peoples Oakland Inc

Peoples oakland is a leader in providing recovery-based comprehensive psychosocial rehabilitationservices for allegheny county adults with severe and persistent mental illness and co-occuring substance abuse disorders.

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 Girls Matter. 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

10 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC: $73,807,459 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INCLIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $26,023,048 · Human ServicesLIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTYOAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $15,468,617 · Human ServicesOAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY+1 more: $894,407 · Human ServicesSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $253,098 · Housing & ShelterSOUTH OAKLAND CITIZENS FOR THE HOMELESS: $12,227 · Housing & ShelterCOMMON GROUND: $244,962 · HealthSTREET DEMOCRACY: $74,751 · Civil RightsGIRLS MATTER: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentHAVEN INC: $8,000 · Crime & Legal
Community Improvement$73,807,459Human Services$42,386,072Housing & Shelter$265,325Health$244,962Civil Rights$74,751Youth Development$20,000Crime & Legal$8,000

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 budgetCOMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC: $73,807,459 over 8y, 75% of budgetLIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY: $26,023,048 over 8y, 3.5% of budgetOAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY: $15,468,617 over 6y, 26% of budgetHOPE HOSPITALITY AND WARMING CENTER INC: $894,407 over 8y, 20% of budgetSOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER: $253,098 over 6y, 2.2% of budgetCOMMON GROUND: $244,962 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetSTREET DEMOCRACY: $74,751 over 3y, 29% of budgetGIRLS MATTER: $20,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetSOUTH OAKLAND CITIZENS FOR THE HOMELESS: $12,227 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetHAVEN INC: $8,000 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.

  • Who funds COMMUNITY HOUSING NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds OAKLAND LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY ↗
  • Who funds HOPE HOSPITALITY AND WARMING CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH OAKLAND SHELTER ↗
  • Who funds COMMON GROUND ↗
  • Who funds STREET DEMOCRACY ↗
  • Who funds GIRLS MATTER ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH OAKLAND CITIZENS FOR THE HOMELESS ↗
  • Who funds HAVEN INC ↗

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.

United Way for Southeastern MichiganMI21.8× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · The Young Foundation · The Carls Foundation · The Jewish Fund · Phillip and Elizabeth Filmer Memorial · Michigan Health Endowment Fund · DTE Energy Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc

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 Alliance for Housing Oakland County Continuum of Care funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Alliance for Housing Oakland County Continuum of Care. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–75%
    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 10 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 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 Alliance for Housing Oakland County Continuum of Care’s filings →

    More from the funding graph