Skip to content
Food Gatherers at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Food Gatherers

Our mission is to alleviate hunger and eliminate its root causes in washtenaw county, michigan.

$19M
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$24k
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.

Food & Nutrition$246kHuman Services$234kHealth$28kCommunity Improvement$25kReligion$6kHousing & Shelter$1k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $23,550, the rows itemized in this filing. The $18,565,025 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $18,541,475 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.
$23,550
Median grant
1
States reached
$18M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AID IN MILAN$23,550
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 (FY17–21, $84k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%BRYANT COMMUNITY CENTER: $23k → 14%BRYANT COMMUNITY CENTER: $22k → 14%BRYANT COMMUNITY CENTER: $10k → 14%OZONE HOUSE: $2k → 14%COMMUNITY LIFE CENTER: $5k → 14%NORTHFIELD'S HUMAN SERVICES: $6k → 14%FAITH IN ACTION: $5k → 14%SOS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $11k → 14%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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$436k · 8 repeat orgs$103k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +132% since the first grant, against +113% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
20

Total granted

$436k
$103k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+132%
+113%

Still filing today

88%
45%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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 ServicesPhilanthropyHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • AI
    AID IN MILAN
    9× · 2017–2025 · $107k · revenue +252% · 26% of their budget
  • JF
    JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $89k · revenue +496%
  • CA
    COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK
    9× · 2017–2025 · $80k · revenue +333%

Funded once

  • BG
    BEAUTIFUL GATE CHURCH
    3× · 2020–2023 · $16k
  • SC
    SOS COMMUNITY SERVICESgraduated
    9× · 2017–2025 · $11k · revenue +230%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2020–2023 · $6k
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
Mymichigan Home Care

Creating healthy communities - together

—
2
Catholic Human Services Inc

Catholic human services inc. enhances the lives of those we serve by providing hope-filled social, emotional and spiritual support to all people.

Human Services
3
Matrix Human Services

Inspired by its heritage since 1906, matrix human services advocates for and services the most vulnerable in the metropolitan detroit community and empowers individiuals and families to enhance the quality of their lives and achieve self…

—
4
Child & Family Service of Saginaw

Child and Family Service of Saginaw County is a social work agency dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in our community by fostering personal growth, emotional development, recovery from trauma, self- reliance, and healthy…

Human Services
5
Community Residence Corporation

Our mission is to provide persons with disabilities living options, life choices and control of their future. Guided by the commitment to focus on individual choice, CRC will provide services that are person-centered and assure customer…

Human Services
6
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…

—
7
Family Service Agency of Mid Michig

Social service agency serving clients in mid-michigan.

Human Services
8
Milan Seniors for Healthy Living

Empowering healthy aging and enhancing quality of life for seniors and their support networks through programs and services in the milan, mi community.

Human Services
9
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
10
Community Living Options

To provide a range of high-quality support services to people in need of residential care, in-home assistance or support. Providing these services in a manner that respects self-direction and dignity of individuals.

Health
11
Alternatives Inc

Alternatives, inc was established to provide comprehensive services to individuals/families with special needs to enable them to reach their highest level of independence and integration into the community.

Human Services
12
Catholic Social Services of the Upper Peninsula Inc

Working in the spirit of Gods universal love, our mission is to nurture, stabilize and strengthen the diverse families of the Upper Peninsula Community by providing mental health and addiction counseling services, child welfare services,…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Washtenaw Pace Inc; the most unlike its peers is Islamic Association of Ypsilanti Inc. 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

42 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
41/42
Grantees still filing
30/42
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AID IN MILAN: $106,675 · OtherAID IN MILANJEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC: $89,300 · OtherJEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INCCatholic Social Services of Washtenaw County: $60,250 · OtherCatholic Social Services of Washtenaw CountyYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS: $50,500 · OtherYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELSHOPE MEDICAL CLINIC INC: $27,550 · OtherHOPE MEDICAL CLINIC INCBEAUTIFUL GATE CHURCH: $16,000 · Other+14 more: $72,575 · Other+14 moreCOMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: $79,850 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY ACTION NETWO…SOS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $11,000 · Human ServicesSOS COMMUNITY SERVICESNORTHFIELDS HUMAN SERVICES INC WHITMORE LAKE AREA HUMAN SERVICES: $6,000 · Human ServicesNORTHFIELDS HUMAN SERV…FAITH IN ACTION INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesCommunity Family Life Centers Inc: $5,000 · Human Services+1 more: $1,875 · Human ServicesAileen Barnett Charitable Tr FBO Salvation Army: $6,000 · PhilanthropyAVALON NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION: $1,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$422,850Human Services$108,725Philanthropy$6,000Housing & Shelter$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetAID IN MILAN: $106,675 over 9y, 26% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC: $89,300 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK: $79,850 over 9y, 3.1% of budgetCatholic Social Services of Washtenaw County: $60,250 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS: $50,500 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetHOPE MEDICAL CLINIC INC: $27,550 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $11,000 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER INC: $10,575 over 8y, 4.0% of budgetSALINE AREA SOCIAL SERVICE INC: $6,000 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetAileen Barnett Charitable Tr FBO Salvation Army: $6,000 over 3y, 28% of budgetNORTHFIELDS HUMAN SERVICES INC WHITMORE LAKE AREA HUMAN SERVICES: $6,000 over 9y, 1.2% of budgetFAITH IN ACTION INC: $5,000 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetACTIVE FAITH COMMUNITY SERVICES: $5,000 over 9y, 0.8% of budgetCommunity Family Life Centers Inc: $5,000 over 3y, 6.6% of budgetOZONE HOUSE INC: $1,875 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetAVALON NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION: $1,000 over 6y, 0.0% 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 AID IN MILAN ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County ↗
  • Who funds YPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS ↗
  • Who funds HOPE MEDICAL CLINIC INC ↗
  • Who funds SOS COMMUNITY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SALINE AREA SOCIAL SERVICE INC ↗
  • Who funds Aileen Barnett Charitable Tr FBO Salvation Army ↗
  • Who funds NORTHFIELDS HUMAN SERVICES INC WHITMORE LAKE AREA HUMAN SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds FAITH IN ACTION INC ↗
  • Who funds ACTIVE FAITH COMMUNITY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds Community Family Life Centers Inc ↗
  • Who funds OZONE HOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds AVALON NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION ↗

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.

Ann Arbor Area Commun…United Way of Washten…United Way for Southe…Community Foundation …Trinity Health - Mich…Thrift Shop Associati…Harry a and Margaret …Edward F Redies Found…The Buhr FoundationDuffy FoundationJames a and Faith Kni…DTE Energy Foundation
Ann Arbor Area Community FoundationMI67.1× affinity31 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation · United Way of Washtenaw County · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Trinity Health - Michigan · Thrift Shop Association of Ann Arbor · Harry a and Margaret D Towsley Foundation · Edward F Redies Foundation Inc · The Buhr Foundation · Duffy Foundation · James a and Faith Knight Foundation · DTE Energy 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 Food Gatherers funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Food Gatherers. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%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
    5report 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 28 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $19M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Food Gatherers’ 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