Skip to content
McFarlan Charitable Corporation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

McFarlan Charitable Corporation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Housing & Shelter$2.9MHuman Services$244kArts & Culture$222kEducation$129kHealth$60kOther$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,030,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$31M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MCFARLAN KEARSLEY RESIDENCE INC$1,030,000
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 (FY17–17, $19k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN: $16k → 8%PRESBYTERIAN VILLAGES OF MICHIGAN: $3k → 8%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.3M · 5 repeat orgs$284k to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
9

Total granted

$3.3M
$284k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
+46%

Still filing today

80%
44%

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
Housing & ShelterEducationHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • MK
    MCFARLAN KEARSLEY RESIDENCE INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $2.7M · revenue +14% · 59% of their budget
  • VA
    Valley Area Agency on Aging
    3× · 2017–2019 · $225k · revenue +36%
  • WH
    WHALEY HISTORICAL HOUSE ASSOCIATION
    3× · 2019–2021 · $81k · revenue +4% · 37% of their budget

Funded once

  • HC
    HAMILTON COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $60k · revenue +33%
  • MC
    Mott Community College
    one grant, 2018 · $50k
  • FF
    FOUNDATION FOR MOTT COMMUNITY COLLEGEgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $50k · revenue +46%
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
Wayne County Housing Inc

Housing for the elderly and handicapped.

Housing & Shelter
2
Missouri Valley Housing Corporation

Provide housing for elderly

Housing & Shelter
3
Harbor Area Housing

Provide services to low income senior adults

Housing & Shelter
4
Methow Housing Trust

The methow housing trust develops and preserves affordable, quality housing for residents of the methow valley.

Housing & Shelter
5
Garfield County Senior Housing Corporation

To provided affordable rental housing to senior citizens.

Housing & Shelter
6
Weaver Community Housing Association

Low-income cooperative housing guided by the principles of affordability, perpetuity, dweller-control, sustainability, diversity, and community.

Housing & Shelter
7
Pvm Kalamazoo Senior Non Profit Housing Corp

Provide housing and services to low income senior adults

Housing & Shelter
8
Cooperative Housing Corporation

Cooperative Housings mission is to provide affordable, shared living residences and services for low to moderate income older adults and some special needs adults. The Corporation is dedicated to helping these individuals to enjoy adequate…

Housing & Shelter
9
Vna Assisted Living Inc

Providing elderly housing and assistance to eligible clients in northeast wisconsin.

—
10
Bridgeview Manor Housing Corporation

Providing affordable housing

Housing & Shelter
11
Hartford Retirement Village Inc

None

Human Services
12
Mutual Housing Association of Greater Hartford Inc

The mutual housing association of greater hartford, inc. develops and manages affordable housing in greater hartford while engaging residents in leadership and educational opportunities.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Court Street Village Non-Profit Housing Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Whaley Historical House Association. 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

8 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. 8 of the 14 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.

3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MCFARLAN KEARSLEY RESIDENCE INC: $2,670,766 · Housing & ShelterMCFARLAN KEARSLEY RESIDENCE INCCOURT STREET VILLAGE NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION: $228,520 · Housing & ShelterCOURT STREET VILLAGE NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATIONValley Area Agency on Aging: $225,000 · OtherValley Area Agenc…WHALEY HISTORICAL HOUSE: $115,857 · OtherWHALEY HISTORICAL…WHALEY HISTORICAL HOUSE ASSOCIATION: $81,000 · OtherWHALEY HISTORICAL…Mott Community College: $50,000 · OtherMott Community Co…Individual grant recipient: $27,010 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $25,000 · OtherSLOAN MUSEUM: $25,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $19,000 · OtherHAMILTON COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK INC: $60,000 · HealthFOUNDATION FOR MOTT COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $50,000 · EducationWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $9,987 · EducationPresbyterian Villages of Michigan: $18,500 · Human Services
Housing & Shelter$2,899,286Other$567,867Health$60,000Education$59,987Human Services$18,500

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 budgetMCFARLAN KEARSLEY RESIDENCE INC: $2,670,766 over 3y, 59% of budgetCOURT STREET VILLAGE NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION: $228,520 over 3y, 97% of budgetValley Area Agency on Aging: $225,000 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetWHALEY HISTORICAL HOUSE ASSOCIATION: $81,000 over 3y, 37% of budgetHAMILTON COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK INC: $60,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR MOTT COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $50,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetPresbyterian Villages of Michigan: $18,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $9,987 over 1y, 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.

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.

Community Foundation …Charles Stewart Mott …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation of Greater FlintMI15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Greater Flint · Charles Stewart Mott Foundation · 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 McFarlan Charitable Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from McFarlan Charitable Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 14 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on McFarlan’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