Skip to content
Elevate Energy at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Elevate Energy

Elevate Energy promotes and expands access to future-focused energy and water solutions.

$3.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
46
Grants FY2024still arriving
7
States reached
$1.0M
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 2024.

Environment$15MHousing & Shelter$2.5MCommunity Improvement$864kHealth$476kYouth Development$118kFood & Nutrition$100kEmployment$60kArts & Culture$50kOther$0
02FY2024 · 46 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k34 grants · $852k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $1.1M
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.3M
$25,000
Median grant
7
States reached
$58M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
New Ecology Inc$1,021,335
Eastside Community Network$277,200
USGBC-ILLINOIS CHAPTER$226,197
Solutions Project Inc$200,000
Bickerdike Redevelopment Center$160,000
Community Health NFP$155,499
Slipstream Group Inc$90,000
Business Services Collective NFP$85,000
Polar Bear Sustainable Energy Co-Op$75,000
Walnut Way Conservation Corp$65,000
Sustainable Options for Urban Living Inc$55,000
CommonWealth Development Inc$48,532
Concerned Residents for South Dearborn$25,000
Michigan Health Improvement Alliance Inc$25,000
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippeway$25,000
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 (FY22–24, $167k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 85% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Washington Heights United Methodist Church and Com: $25k → 14%Benton Harbor Community Development Corporation: $25k → 15%One Love Global Inc: $25k → 16%Marillac St Vincent: $17k → 14%Hispanic Center of Western Michigan: $25k → 11%Dream of Detroit: $25k → 21%Cody Rouge Community Action Alliance: $25k → 21%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
IN
CA
TN
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 31% of Elevate Energy’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 14% of the giving stays in IL; by stated purpose, 43%.

Elevate Energylessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14M · 12 repeat orgs$4.6M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +26% since the first grant, against +25% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 33 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
22

Total granted

$14M
$3.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
+25%

Still filing today

67%
41%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.2M 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
EnvironmentHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesCommunity 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

  • NE
    NEW ECOLOGY INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $11M · revenue +116% · 41% of their budget
  • SP
    Solutions Project Inc
    3× · 2021–2024 · $612k · revenue +26%
  • WD
    WARRENCONNER DEVELOPMENT COALITION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $382k · revenue +63%

Funded once

  • CH
    Community Housing Partners
    one grant, 2023 · $1.1M
  • GP
    Goodell Place Unlimited Partnership
    one grant, 2023 · $536k
  • MC
    Madison Community Capital
    one grant, 2021 · $288k
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
The Greening of Detroit

The greening of detroit's mission is the sustainable growth of a healthy urban community through trees, green spaces, healthy living, education, training and job opportunities.

Environment
2
Detroit Food Policy Council

The organization was founded by a group of concerned citizens, working in cooperation with the detroit city council, to shape food policy and to work for a more localized, more just, and environmentally friendly food system. the…

Food & Nutrition
3
Detroit Land Bank Community Development Corporation

The detroit land bank community development corporation's mission is to serve the people of the city of detroit, michigan through the advancement of economic welfare, the promotion of community development, and the provision of affordable…

Community Improvement
4
New Development Corporation

Promote home ownership & affordable housing to alleviate neighborhood blight in targeted low and moderate income ares. work with low-income individuals to help them obtain and retain home ownership, facilitate homeowner repair grants and…

Housing & Shelter
5
Michigan Enviromental Council

Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.

Environment
6
United Community Housing Coalition

To help low-income residents in detroit and wayne county stay in their homes and strengthen their communities, through representation, support, and ownership. we believe that having a place to live is a basic human right, and are…

Housing & Shelter
7
Detroit Future City

Detroit Future City (DFC) was founded in 2015 to catalyze implementation of the Detroit Strategic Framework, a 50-year vision for the City of Detroit developed with input from over 100,000 Detroiters. See Schedule O.

Community Improvement
8
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition

Works to end environmental injustice by empowering communities at the grassroots level.the corporation is organzied exclusively for charitable, religious, educational and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the makeing of…

Environment
9
Doing Development Differently in Metro Detroit (D4) Coalition Inc

To build a diverse coalition of community, environmental, faith and organized labor organizations united to strengthen metro detroit through meaningful community engagement in the creation of sustainable "win-win" economic development…

Community Improvement
10
Detroit Economic Growth Corporation

Promotion of activities to spur economic growth and revitalization in the city of detroit

—
11
Connect Detroit

To strategically solve problems through collaboratives with City of Detroit Departments, nonprofit organizations and local grant makers in order to secure the maximum federal, state, and national foundation dollars for the city Detroit.

Community Improvement
12
We the People of Detroit

Dedicated to community coalition building and providing vehicles that inform, train, and mobilize the citizens of the city of Detroit and beyond to improve their quality of life.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Walnut Way Conservation Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Washington Heights United Methodist Church. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

47 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. 47 of the 69 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
47/47
Grantees still filing
18/47
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW ECOLOGY INC: $11,118,410 · EnvironmentNEW ECOLOGY INCSolutions Project Inc: $612,000 · Environment+7 more: $459,426 · EnvironmentCommunity Housing Partners: $1,146,926 · OtherCommunity Housing Partn…Goodell Place Unlimited Partnership: $535,608 · OtherGoodell Place Unlimited…Madison Community Capital: $288,000 · OtherMadison Community Capit…CSI Support & Development Services (Dunn): $200,000 · OtherFairway: $197,700 · OtherWEST CENTRAL WISCONSIN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY INC: $180,000 · OtherLac du Flambeau Chippewa Ha: $175,000 · Other+30 more: $1,223,742 · Other+30 moreBICKERDIKE REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $781,012 · Housing & ShelterWISCONSIN HOUSING PRESERVATION CORP: $194,000 · Housing & ShelterANN ARBOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP: $150,000 · Housing & ShelterAVALON NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION: $150,000 · Housing & ShelterWALNUT WAY CONSERVATION CORPORATION: $65,000 · Housing & Shelter+3 more: $75,000 · Housing & ShelterWARRENCONNER DEVELOPMENT COALITION: $382,200 · Community ImprovementDEVELOP DETROIT INC: $115,000 · Community ImprovementSUSTAINABLE OPTIONS FOR URBAN LIVING INC: $55,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMON WEALTH DEVELOPMENT INC: $48,532 · Community Improvement+1 more: $18,614 · Community ImprovementCommunity Health NFP: $434,249 · HealthMICHIGAN HEALTH IMPROVEMENT ALLIANCE: $25,000 · HealthBUSINESS SERVICES COLLECTIVE NFP DBA BUILDERS AVENUE: $170,000 · Civil RightsHISPANIC CENTER OF WESTERN MICHIGAN INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesONE LOVE GLOBAL: $25,000 · Human ServicesBENTON HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $25,000 · Human ServicesDream of Detroit: $25,000 · Human ServicesWashington Heights United Methodist Church: $25,000 · Human ServicesCody Rouge Community Action Alliance: $25,000 · Human ServicesMARILLAC ST VINCENT FAMILY SERVICES INC: $16,666 · Human Services
Environment$12,189,836Other$3,946,976Housing & Shelter$1,415,012Community Improvement$619,346Health$459,249Civil Rights$170,000Human Services$166,666

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 budgetNEW ECOLOGY INC: $11,118,410 over 8y, 41% of budgetBICKERDIKE REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $781,012 over 4y, 5.4% of budgetSolutions Project Inc: $612,000 over 3y, 3.5% of budgetCommunity Health NFP: $434,249 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetWARRENCONNER DEVELOPMENT COALITION: $382,200 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetUS Green Building Council-Illinois: $226,197 over 1y, 20% of budgetWISCONSIN HOUSING PRESERVATION CORP: $194,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetWEST CENTRAL WISCONSIN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY INC: $180,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetBUSINESS SERVICES COLLECTIVE NFP DBA BUILDERS AVENUE: $170,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetANN ARBOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP: $150,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetAVALON NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION: $150,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetDEVELOP DETROIT INC: $115,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetSLIPSTREAM GROUP INC: $90,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBRILLIANT DETROIT: $68,398 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetWALNUT WAY CONSERVATION CORPORATION: $65,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCOMMON WEALTH DEVELOPMENT INC: $48,532 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetSUSTAIN DANE INC: $43,229 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetFOUR COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetHISPANIC CENTER OF WESTERN MICHIGAN INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSOUTHWEST DETROIT ENVIRONMENTAL VISION: $25,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetWE WANT GREEN TOO: $25,000 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetONE LOVE GLOBAL: $25,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE WAREHOUSE OF DETROIT: $25,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetBENTON HARBOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $25,000 over 1y, 8.5% of budgetFriends of Rouge Park: $25,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetSOULARDARITY: $25,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetB A S S INC: $25,000 over 1y, 9.7% of budgetHO-CHUNK HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetYOUNG GIFTED & GREEN: $25,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetMICHIGAN HEALTH IMPROVEMENT ALLIANCE: $25,000 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetGreat Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetDream of Detroit: $25,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetGROWING HOPE INC: $25,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetWashington Heights United Methodist Church: $25,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetDetroit Black Community Food Sovereignty Network: $25,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetKEWEENAW COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetINTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCody Rouge Community Action Alliance: $25,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetDetroit Justice Center: $25,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetAvalon Village Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetURBAN CORE COLLECTIVE: $18,614 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetTRILOGY INC: $16,666 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMARILLAC ST VINCENT FAMILY SERVICES INC: $16,666 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA: $12,200 over 1y, 0.3% 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

United States Energy …Community Foundation …The Kresge FoundationUnited Way for Southe…Amalgamated Charitabl…The Skillman Foundati…Windward FundAllied Media Projects…Enterprise Community …Arie and Ida Crown Me…WK Kellogg FoundationThe Ford Foundation
United States Energy FoundationCA23.5× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United States Energy Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · The Kresge Foundation · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Skillman Foundation · Windward Fund · Allied Media Projects Inc · Enterprise Community Partners Inc · Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · WK Kellogg Foundation · The Ford 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 Elevate Energy funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Elevate Energy. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • New Ecology Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
14report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
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.

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 69 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 Elevate Energy’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