Skip to content
Great Lakes Community Action Partnership at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Great Lakes Community Action Partnership

The mission of GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP is to create partnerships and opportunites to help individuals, families and communities thrive.

$7.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$1.2M
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.

Community Improvement$9.9MHuman Services$8.9MHousing & Shelter$688kYouth Development$449kEmployment$435kEnvironment$61kHealth$59kFood & Nutrition$16k
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $2,819,948, the rows itemized in this filing. The $7,825,363 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,005,415 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $27k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $166k
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.6M
$633,679
Median grant
4
States reached
$35M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LUCAS COUNTY$1,159,370
WEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIPS INC$833,968
INDIANA COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION INC$633,679
CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF TOLEDO INC$86,001
MIDWEST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INCORPORATED$79,718
HANCOCK HARDIN WYANDOT PUTNAM COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION$27,212
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 (FY17–18, $262k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 54% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 12%Ottawa County Transitional Housing Inc: $66k → 10%Center of Hope Family Services: $141k → 18%OTTAWA COUNTY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING INC: $56k → 10%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$23M · 18 repeat orgs$604k to everyone else

18 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
6

Total granted

$23M
$577k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+155%

Still filing today

56%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesFood & NutritionHealthOther
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

  • WV
    WEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSH
    8× · 2017–2025 · $3.9M · revenue +106%
  • IC
    INDIANA COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $3.9M · revenue +291%
  • CA
    COMMUNITY ACTION KENTUCKY INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $3.0M · revenue +60%

Funded once

  • WC
    WISCONSIN COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM ASSOCIATION INCORPORATEDgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $222k · revenue +658% · 25% of their budget
  • CO
    CENTER OF HOPE FAMILY SERVICESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $141k · revenue +155%
  • VS
    VANGUARD SENTENEL CAREER & TECHNOLOGY CENTER
    one grant, 2023 · $133k
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
Indiana County Community Action Program

Provide resources for low income clients.

Human Services
2
West Ohio Community Action Partnership

Organized for the purpose of creating, developing and effecting programs and projects designed to enhance the economic development of Allen, Auglaize, and Mercer Counties and its citizens, particularly to those areas of the community and…

Community Improvement
3
Ohio Heartland Community Action

Operate programs to assist low and moderate income individuals and families.

Human Services
4
Community Action Program Inc of Western Indiana

To Develop and Provide resources for the purpose of assisting Low-Income Individuals through a variety of programs in Benton, Fountain, Montgomery, Parke, Vermillion, And Warren Counties in Indiana.

Human Services
5
Ohio Association of Community Action Agencies

Provide training to the ohio community action agencies.

—
6
Ohio Housing Council

To advocate and educate on behalf of our members to increase the quality and supply of affordable housing in the state of ohio, and to provide our members with current legislative awareness, a forum for voicing legislative and programmatic…

Community Improvement
7
Rensselaer County Housing Resources

To connect individuals and families with resources and knowledge to live in desirable homes and create vibrant sustainable communities across rensselaer county, ny.

—
8
Community Intervention Center of Lackawanna County

To provide shelter for the homeless during the day, provide professional crisis intervention, provide professional drug and alcohol abuse intervention, provide medical screening upon request and provide a representative payee program

Health
9
Community Action Partnership of Middle Alabama Inc

Providing low income individuals home energy assistance and providing emergency assitance as needed

—
10
Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency

Through advocacy, partnerships, and high-quality programs, our dedicated team is breaking down barriers to equity and opportunity, while building self-sufficiency across generations.

Human Services
11
Central Kentucky Community Action Council Inc

This organization runs both federal and state programs which focus on improving the lives of low income recipients.

Human Services
12
Ohio Community Action Training Organization

Training for community action.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hancock-Hardin-Wyandot-Putnam Community Action Commission; the most unlike its peers is Four County Young At Heart. 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

14 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. 14 of the 25 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
11/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LUCAS COUNTY: $9,407,542 · OtherLUCAS COUNTYINDIANA COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION INC: $3,860,759 · OtherINDIANA COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION INCCATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF TOLEDO INC: $558,173 · Other+14 more: $1,771,759 · Other+14 moreWEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSH: $3,896,918 · Community ImprovementWEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY ACTION PA…COMMUNITY ACTION KENTUCKY INC: $3,030,016 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY ACTION KENTUCKY INCWAYFINDERS OHIO INC: $479,710 · Housing & Shelter+1 more: $16,320 · Housing & ShelterCENTER OF HOPE FAMILY SERVICES: $140,808 · Human ServicesOTTAWA COUNTY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING: $121,633 · Human ServicesNEW HOUSING OHIO INC: $35,072 · HealthFOUR COUNTY YOUNG AT HEART: $15,825 · Food & Nutrition
Other$15,598,233Community Improvement$6,926,934Housing & Shelter$496,030Human Services$262,441Health$35,072Food & Nutrition$15,825

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSH: $3,896,918 over 8y, 17% of budgetINDIANA COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION INC: $3,860,759 over 8y, 13% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION KENTUCKY INC: $3,030,016 over 7y, 0.9% of budgetWAYFINDERS OHIO INC: $479,710 over 7y, 13% of budgetILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES: $377,594 over 2y, 6.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION OF OTTAWA COUNTY: $227,558 over 3y, 4.4% of budgetWISCONSIN COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED: $222,137 over 1y, 25% of budgetCENTER OF HOPE FAMILY SERVICES: $140,808 over 1y, 23% of budgetMIDWEST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INC: $140,389 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetOTTAWA COUNTY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING: $121,633 over 2y, 23% of budgetNEW HOUSING OHIO INC: $35,072 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetLiberty Center of Sandusky County: $16,320 over 1y, 3.4% of budgetFOUR COUNTY YOUNG AT HEART: $15,825 over 2y, 49% 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 WEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSH ↗
  • Who funds INDIANA COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY ACTION KENTUCKY INC ↗
  • Who funds WAYFINDERS OHIO INC ↗
  • Who funds ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION OF OTTAWA COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds CENTER OF HOPE FAMILY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds MIDWEST ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INC ↗
  • Who funds OTTAWA COUNTY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ↗
  • Who funds NEW HOUSING OHIO INC ↗
  • Who funds HANCOCK-HARDIN-WYANDOT-PUTNAM COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION ↗
  • Who funds Liberty Center of Sandusky County ↗
  • Who funds FOUR COUNTY YOUNG AT HEART ↗

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.

Oneohio Recovery Foun…Toledo Community Foun…Amazonsmile Foundation
Oneohio Recovery Foundation IncOH13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Oneohio Recovery Foundation Inc · Toledo Community Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Great Lakes Community Action Partnership funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Great Lakes Community Action Partnership. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    0get no government money at all
    7report 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 25 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Great Lakes Community Action Partnership’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