Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc

Our mission is to promote the protection and enhancement of water quality and water resources in the Great Lakes.

$260k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$135k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What you fund
0186% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2025.

Human Services$815kEnvironment$302kHealth$136kCommunity Improvement$38kRecreation & Sports$21kAnimals$20kEducation$7kOther$213k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 3 grants below total $150,444 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $259,610 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $109,166 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $15k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $135k
$9,244
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Midstory$135,000
Black Autonomy Network Commun$9,244
WaterLegacy$6,200
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $815k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Black Autonomy Network Commun: $16k → 15%Midstory: $135k → 18%Black Autonomy Network Commun: $10k → 15%Midstory: $135k → 18%Black Autonomy Network Commun: $10k → 15%We the People of Detroit: $122k → 21%Midstory: $135k → 18%Black Autonomy Network Commun: $9k → 15%We the People of Detroit: $91k → 21%Black Autonomy Network Commun: $7k → 15%We the People of Detroit: $15k → 21%Midstory: $118k → 18%Black Autonomy Network Commun: $6k → 15%We the People of Detroit: $6k → 21%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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

WA
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
OH
VA
AZ
TN

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.

04

Where the work is directed

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

About 14% of Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 45% of the giving stays in MI; read by stated purpose it is 41% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.1M · 9 repeat orgs$500k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
35

Total granted

$1.1M
$500k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+63%

Still filing today

67%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsHealthAnimalsOther

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

  • We the People of Detroit
    4× · 2017–2021 · $234k · revenue +447%
  • CR
    CONSERVATION RESOURCE ALLIANCE
    2× · 2017–2018 · $33k · revenue +35%
  • W
    WATERLEGACY
    3× · 2022–2025 · $19k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $70k · revenue +175%
  • ML
    MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUNDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $68k · revenue +76%
  • TO
    THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCILgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $33k · revenue +63%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc

It is our mission at huron pines to conserve and enhance northern michigan's natural resources to ensure healthy water, protected places and vibrant communities. for alomst 50 years, our work across the forests, lakes and streams of…

Environment
2
Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources

The coalition to protect michigan resources's mission is to be a strong voice for the equitable co-management of michigan's fisheries, with both the great lakes and inland lakes and streams, to insure that conservation principles remain in…

Environment
3
Chagrin River Watershed Partners Inc

Preserving and enhancing the scenic and environmental quality of the ecosystem of the chagrin river, lake erie and other ohio watersheds in a manner which assures a sustainable future for people, plants and animals.

Human Services
4
Concerned Citizens of Portage Lake

Portage Lake environment preservation

Environment
5
Tippecanoe Environmental Lake & Watershed Foundation

We work to protect and improve water quality in the lakes and streams of the upper tippecanoe river watershed. we do this by implementing solutions to stop pollution, engaging youth & adults and uniting partners.

Public Safety & Disaster
6
West Creek Conservancy

Our mission is to enrich the lives of all people in northeast ohio by conserving natural habitats, restoring the ecological value of our region's lands and waters, and expanding opportunities to connect people from all cultures to…

Environment
7
Wisconsin Wetlands Association Inc

Wisconsin Wetlands Association is dedicated to the protection, restoration, and enjoyment of wetlands and associated ecosystems through science-based programs, education, and advocacy.

Environment
8
Metropolitan Affairs Coalition

The work program of metropolitan affairs coalition ("mac") is driven by its coalition of business, labor, government, and education leaders; this coalition is dedicated to equity and sustainability, creating economic opportunity, improving…

Community Improvement
9
Gratiot Lake Conservancy
Environment
10
Blackstone River Coalition

Improve water quality blackstone wtrshd

Environment
11
Superior Bio-Conservancy Inc

The superior bio-conservancy is an ambitious plan to protect and restore the biological integrity and hydrology of the great lakes region and the laurentian forest province throughout minnesota, wisconsin and michigan.

—
12
Lake of the Ozarks Watershed Allian

Preserve, protect and improve the lake of the ozarks, it's watershed and natural resources while maintaing our economic, social and environmental health.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Conservation Resource Alliance and the most unlike its peers is Black Autonomy Network Community Organization. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%3%<5yr14%11%5–10yr19%37%10–20yr16%26%20–35yr13%13%35–55yr16%11%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%1%<5yr14%4%5–10yr19%61%10–20yr16%11%20–35yr13%12%35–55yr16%12%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
2%1/44
the rest of the field
13%
240,395/1,819,521

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.

05the grantee network

36 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. 36 of the 44 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
18
Early backer (in before they grew)
34/36
Grantees still filing
25/36
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

MIDSTORY — $523,125 · Human ServicesMIDSTORYWe the People of Detroit — $234,442 · Human ServicesWe the People of DetroitBLACK AUTONOMY NETWORK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION — $57,791 · Human ServicesBLACK AUTONOMY NETWORK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $67,500 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CON…THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL — $32,500 · EnvironmentTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL…FRIENDS OF THE ST CLAIR RIVER — $25,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF THE ST CLAI…WATERLEGACY — $18,550 · EnvironmentWATERLEGACYROOT-PIKE WATERSHED INITIATIVE NETWORK INC — $17,000 · EnvironmentROOT-PIKE WATERSHED IN…URBAN RIVERS INC — $15,000 · EnvironmentDucks Unlimited Inc — $12,895 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC — $10,260 · Environment+13 more — $103,403 · Environment+13 moreALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES — $70,000 · OtherALLIANCE FOR TH…CONSERVATION RESOURCE ALLIANCE — $32,500 · OtherCONSERVATION RE…WEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION — $17,000 · OtherWEST MICHIGAN E…GENESEE COUNTY HISPANIC LATINO COLLABORATIVE INC — $17,000 · OtherGENESEE COUNTY …STERLING WATER STEWARDS — $15,800 · OtherSTERLING WATER …PERE MARQUETTE WATERSHED COUNCIL INCORPORATED — $15,000 · OtherPERE MARQUETTE …GREEN MICHIGAN ORG — $10,000 · OtherMUSKEGON COUNTY ENVIROMENTAL COORDINATING COUNCIL — $9,238 · OtherWEST GRAND BOULEVARD COLLABORATIVE — $9,000 · Other+3 more — $17,200 · Other+3 moreEVERGREEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT IN — $135,599 · HealthEVERGREEN…JUNCTION COALITION — $17,465 · Community ImprovementCommunity Based Organization Partners — $13,000 · Community ImprovementDetroit Future City — $8,000 · Community ImprovementGRAND RAPIDS WHITEWATER INC — $15,000 · Recreation & SportsMUSKEGON SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION — $6,250 · Recreation & SportsTROUT UNLIMITED MICHIGAN COUNCIL — $19,880 · AnimalsSUPERIOR RIVERS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC — $7,100 · Education
Human Services$815,358Environment$302,108Other$212,738Health$135,599Community Improvement$38,465Recreation & Sports$21,250Animals$19,880Education$7,100

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetMIDSTORY — $523,125 over 4y, 62% of budgetWe the People of Detroit — $234,442 over 4y, 19% of budgetEVERGREEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT IN — $135,599 over 5y, 14% of budgetALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES — $70,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $67,500 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetBLACK AUTONOMY NETWORK COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION — $57,791 over 6y, 23% of budgetTHE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL — $32,500 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCONSERVATION RESOURCE ALLIANCE — $32,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetTROUT UNLIMITED MICHIGAN COUNCIL — $19,880 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetWATERLEGACY — $18,550 over 3y, 2.9% of budgetJUNCTION COALITION — $17,465 over 2y, 12% of budgetWEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION — $17,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetGENESEE COUNTY HISPANIC LATINO COLLABORATIVE INC — $17,000 over 2y, 5.6% of budgetGRAND RAPIDS WHITEWATER INC — $15,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc — $12,895 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC — $10,260 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBLANCHARD RIVER WATERSHED PARTNERSH — $10,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetKalamazoo Nature Center — $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP — $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCLINTON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL — $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCLEAN WISCONSIN INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetMILWAUKEE RIVERKEEPER INC — $9,238 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetDetroit Future City — $8,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetSUPERIOR RIVERS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC — $7,100 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetAMERICAN SOCIETY OF ADAPTATION PROFESSIONALS — $7,100 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetLAKE ERIE WATERKEEPER INC — $6,500 over 1y, 13% of budgetEcoAdapt — $6,368 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMUSKEGON SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION — $6,250 over 1y, 39% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF CANADIAN CONSERVATION — $5,923 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetSKY ISLAND ALLIANCE — $5,724 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCOALITION TO SAVE THE MENOMINEE RIVER INC — $5,450 over 1y, 3.6% of budget
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.

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.

PatagoniaorgAmerican Rivers IncNational Fish and Wil…The Minneapolis Found…Charles Stewart Mott …Michigan Enviromental…The Brookby FoundationThe Partnership Proje…National Wildlife Fed…Natural Resources Def…The Joyce FoundationWindward Fund
PatagoniaorgCA24.9× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · American Rivers Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · Charles Stewart Mott Foundation · Michigan Enviromental Council · The Brookby Foundation · The Partnership Project Inc · National Wildlife Federation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · The Joyce Foundation · Windward Fund

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 Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc 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.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    13report 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

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 44 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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 camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home
    State money flows
    the interactive map of money crossing state lines