Skip to content

· Public charity

Allied Media Action Fund

Educate legislators and the general public on issues facing michigan and the united states.

$115k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$52k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Civil Rights$639kEnvironment$205kPublic Benefit$25kHuman Services$10k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $108,595, the rows itemized in this filing. The $114,595 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $6,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k5 grants · $37k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $20k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $52k
$9,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$542k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION$51,995
ONE LOVE GLOBAL INC$10,000
WE THE PEOPLE ACTION FUND$10,000
VVPN$9,500
MUUSJN$8,600
TIDES ADVOCACY$8,500
ANN ARBOR FOR PUBLIC POWER$5,000
LEAD EXCHANGE NETWORK$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 (FY24–24, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ONE LOVE GLOBAL INC: $10k → 16%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 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
Jobs for Michigan

Clean Jobs for Michigan is building a future we can all be proud of. Through advocating for clean water clean energy and good-paying clean jobs were working to build a Michigan that will sustain our natural resources and hardworking…

—
2
We the People Mi

To organize, train, and educate communities throughout Michigan to promote racial and economic justice; facilitate relationships between community leaders from rural, suburban, and urban communities across Michigan and strengthen…

Education
3
Action for Liberation

Michigan Liberation is dedicated to the leadership development of community members and creation of effective campaigns to advance racial, gender and economic justice in Michigan

Civil Rights
4
Michigan Rising Action

Michigan Rising Action is focused on holding special interest networks accountable and advancing conservative principles. We're fighting for limited government, lowering taxes, fighting government over-regulation that stifles freedom, free…

—
5
California Environmental Justice Alliance

Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…

Environment
6
Michigan Economic Justice Action Fund

To advance economic equity for working class Michiganders.

Civil Rights
7
Wepower

We activate community power to redesign social systems to be just and equitable for all through (1) developing and supporting leaders and organizations and (2) leading campaigns, coalitions, and innovative initiatives.

Community Improvement
8
Michigan Community Action Inc

Michigan Community Action leads and serves a poverty-fighting network. MCA is dedicated to helping people and changing lives, through advocacy, education, and collaboration.

Community Improvement
9
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
10
Clean Fuels Michigan

To accelerate the transition to clean transportation in michigan. we advocate for the suite of alternative fuels including biofuels, hydrogen, propane, natural gas, and electric vehicles.

Community Improvement
11
Michigan Advocacy Program

To advance the safety, independence, and economic stability of those most affected by poverty, racism, and other structurally oppressive systems by increasing access to justice and working for systemic solutions.

Crime & Legal
12
Michigan Climate Action Network

Our mission is to amplify connect and support the people organizations and communities demanding urgent bold and equitable solutions for a just transition to a resilient future.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is We the People Action Fund; the most unlike its peers is Ann Arbor for Public Power. 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

8 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. 8 of the 13 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KAIROS ACTION INC: $612,160 · Civil RightsKAIROS ACTION INC+1 more: $10,000 · Civil RightsMICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION: $156,722 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN ENVIRONMENT…TIDES ADVOCACY: $23,500 · OtherNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE: $10,000 · OtherVVPN: $9,500 · OtherMUUSJN: $8,600 · OtherMICHIGAN WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION: $5,000 · OtherLEAD EXCHANGE NETWORK: $5,000 · OtherEconomic Justice Alliance of Michigan: $15,000 · Public BenefitANN ARBOR FOR PUBLIC POWER: $5,000 · Public BenefitONE LOVE GLOBAL: $10,000 · Human ServicesBEYOND NUCLEAR: $9,000 · Science & Tech
Civil Rights$622,160Environment$156,722Other$61,600Public Benefit$20,000Human Services$10,000Science & Tech$9,000

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 budgetKAIROS ACTION INC: $612,160 over 1y, 100% of budgetMICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COALITION: $156,722 over 2y, 5.7% of budgetTIDES ADVOCACY: $23,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWe The People Action Fund: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetONE LOVE GLOBAL: $10,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetBEYOND NUCLEAR: $9,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetANN ARBOR FOR PUBLIC POWER: $5,000 over 1y, 9.3% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Tides FoundationCA17.6× affinity7 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides 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 Allied Media Action Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Allied Media Action Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Allied Media Action Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Allied Media Action Fund 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 13 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 Allied Media Action’s filings →

    More from the funding graph