Skip to content
McCalla Helen Fdn Ochr at a glance

· Private foundation

McCalla Helen Fdn Ochr

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$116k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$22k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Human Services$346kHealth$160kHousing & Shelter$122kFood & Nutrition$34kEducation$15kCivil Rights$8kCrime & Legal$7kRecreation & Sports$4kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $50k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $66k
$9,304
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER$21,973
ST LOUIS CENTER$20,000
DEXTER SENIOR CENTER$12,920
THE GILBERT RESIDENCE OF YPSILANTI$11,384
WASHTENAW COUNTY CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICE$9,488
YPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS$9,304
DISABILITY NETWORK$8,000
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW$6,449
ALZHEIMERS ASSOCIATION$4,929
CHELSEA SENIOR CITIZEN ACTIVITY CENTER$4,580
MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING$4,533
INTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES OF WASHTENAW CTY$2,905
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 (FY19–25, $115k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 68% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING: $11k → 10%MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING: $11k → 10%MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING: $9k → 10%MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING: $5k → 10%MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING: $1k → 10%CHELSEA SENIOR CITIZENS ACTIVITIES CENTE: $5k → 14%CHELSEA SENIOR CITIZEN ACTIVITY CENTER: $5k → 14%CHELSEA SENIOR CITIZEN ACTIVITY CENTER: $4k → 14%CHELSEA SENIOR CITIZEN ACTIVITY CENTER: $3k → 14%SALINE AREA SENIOR COUNCIL INC: $17k → 14%YPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER: $22k → 14%YPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER: $9k → 14%YPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER: $7k → 14%YPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER: $6k → 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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$640k · 17 repeat orgs$66k to everyone else

17 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
8

Total granted

$640k
$58k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+71%
+79%

Still filing today

47%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthRecreation & SportsHousing & ShelterCivil RightsOther
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

  • JF
    JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC
    5× · 2020–2025 · $60k · revenue +293%
  • YS
    YPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER
    4× · 2021–2025 · $44k · revenue +114%
  • TG
    THE GILBERT RESIDENCE INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $38k · revenue +23%

Funded once

  • SA
    SALINE AREA SENIOR COUNCIL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $17k · revenue +79%
  • AF
    ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ACTION
    one grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +128%
  • PT
    PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP SENIOR CENTER
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
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
Southside Senior Citizen Center

Adults day care

Human Services
2
Marshfield Senior Center

At our senior center, our goal is to help seniors live vibrant, fulfilling lives. We aim to create a warm, welcoming place where seniors can connect, learn, and stay active. We also understand that not everyone can make it to the center,…

—
3
Stewart County Senior Citizens Cent Foust

The mission is to assist the seniors of stewart county in living full, interactive, and contributing lives. the senior center is a multipurpose center designed to meet the needs of the aging in our community. to provide various volunteer…

Human Services
4
Roseburg Senior Center

To promote respect, dignity, health and well being by enhancing quality of life, strengthening networks and recognizing individual desires to remain active, productive and independent.

Youth Development
5
Fayette County Commission On Aging Incorporated

The fayette county commission on aging serves and represents those adults 60 years of age and older in fayette county. the emphasis is on improving the quality of life of those fayette county citizens, 60 and above, and providing the…

—
6
Nicholas County Senior Center
Food & Nutrition
7
Melcher-Dallas Senior Center
Human Services
8
Manhattan Senior Center Inc

The manhattan senior center provides services and activities for persons age 60 years of age and older living in riley county and the manhattan area. services and activities provided include fitness and social activities, educational…

Human Services
9
Albert Gallatin Human Service Agency Inc

Senior citizen programs through the area agency on aging which provides a center, services, congregate meals and home delivery meals.

Human Services
10
The Senior Center Inc

To provide a family centered environment and include programs and activites that promote a healthy lifestyle for children, adults, and senior citizens

Human Services
11
Council On Aging & Human Services

Enhancing lives and building communities by providing transportation and nutrition services.

Human Services
12
The Gillespie Center

Provide services to the senior community in the westonka area.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Milan Seniors for Healthy Living; the most unlike its peers is S Foundation. 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

13 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. 13 of the 26 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST LOUIS CENTER: $92,648 · OtherST LOUIS CENTERTHE GILBERT RESIDENCE OF YPSILANTI: $90,836 · OtherTHE GILBERT RESIDENCE OF YPSILANTIJEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC: $60,142 · OtherJEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INCDEXTER SENIOR CENTER: $35,881 · OtherDEXTER SENIOR CENTERPITTSFIELD SENIOR CENTER: $35,455 · OtherPITTSFIELD SENIOR CENTERYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS: $34,407 · OtherYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELSINTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES OF WASHTENAW CTY: $33,813 · OtherINTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES OF WASHTENAW CTYWASHTENAW COUNTY CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICE: $31,748 · OtherWASHTENAW COUNTY CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICEALZHEIMERS ASSOCIATION: $24,252 · OtherDEXTER SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $23,306 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $19,745 · Other+6 more: $46,522 · Other+6 moreYPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER: $43,721 · Human ServicesYPSILANTI SENIOR CEN…MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING: $36,652 · Human ServicesMILAN SENIORS FOR HE…CHELSEA SENIOR CENTER: $17,220 · Human ServicesCHELSEA SENIOR CENTE…SALINE AREA SENIOR COUNCIL INC: $16,995 · Human ServicesSALINE AREA SENIOR C…ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ACTION: $10,150 · Human ServicesASSOCIATION FOR COMM…THE GILBERT RESIDENCE INC: $38,213 · HealthTHE DISABILITY NETWORK: $8,000 · Civil RightsS FOUNDATION: $4,462 · Recreation & SportsGLACIER HILLS FOUNDATION: $1,800 · Housing & Shelter
Other$528,755Human Services$124,738Health$38,213Civil Rights$8,000Recreation & Sports$4,462Housing & Shelter$1,800

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 budgetST LOUIS CENTER: $92,648 over 7y, 0.3% of budgetJEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC: $60,142 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetYPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER: $43,721 over 4y, 9.6% of budgetTHE GILBERT RESIDENCE INC: $38,213 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetMILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING: $36,652 over 5y, 3.3% of budgetYPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS: $34,407 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetDEXTER SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $23,306 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetCHELSEA SENIOR CENTER: $17,220 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetSALINE AREA SENIOR COUNCIL INC: $16,995 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetTHE DISABILITY NETWORK: $8,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetS FOUNDATION: $4,462 over 1y, 7.5% of budgetGLACIER HILLS FOUNDATION: $1,800 over 1y, 0.1% 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 ST LOUIS CENTER ↗
  • Who funds JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF WASHTENAW COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds YPSILANTI SENIOR CENTER ↗
  • Who funds THE GILBERT RESIDENCE INC ↗
  • Who funds MILAN SENIORS FOR HEALTHY LIVING ↗
  • Who funds YPSILANTI MEALS ON WHEELS ↗
  • Who funds DEXTER SENIOR CITIZENS INC ↗
  • Who funds CHELSEA SENIOR CENTER ↗
  • Who funds SALINE AREA SENIOR COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ACTION ↗
  • Who funds THE DISABILITY NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds S FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds GLACIER HILLS FOUNDATION ↗

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…Trinity Health - Mich…Michigan Health Endow…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Ann Arbor Area Community FoundationMI21.9× affinity8 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation · United Way of Washtenaw County · Trinity Health - Michigan · Michigan Health Endowment Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 McCalla Helen Fdn Ochr funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from McCalla Helen Fdn Ochr. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 26 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-PF 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 McCalla Helen Fdn Ochr’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