Skip to content

· Public charity

Michigan Association for Local Public Health

To strengthen michigan's system of local public health departments and local governing boards.

$256k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$19k
Largest
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 2023.

Health$1.7M
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $89,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $256,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $167,000 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.
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$885k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN HEALTH ASSOCIATION$19,000
NORTHERN MICHIGAN HEALTH CONSORTIUM$10,000
UNITED WAY OF BAY COUNTY$10,000
HEALTH NET OF WEST MICHIGAN$10,000
THUMB COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERSHIP$10,000
GREATER FLINT HEALTH COALITION$10,000
ACCESS HEALTH INC$10,000
CENTER FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH & TRANSFORMATION$10,000
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 (FY21–21, $44k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%JARC: $44k → 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.

37%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$673k · 5 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -19% since the first grant, against -26% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
16

Total granted

$673k
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-19%
-26%

Still filing today

40%
19%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’25
HealthArts & CultureHuman ServicesOther
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

  • SM
    SOUTHEASTERN MI HEALTH ASSOCIATION
    5× · 2017–2025 · $450k · revenue -32%
  • DH
    DISTRICT HEALT DEPT 10
    2× · 2018–2019 · $132k
  • MU
    MICHIGAN UNITED
    2× · 2021–2022 · $48k

Funded once

  • MC
    MI COUNTY HEALTH DEPTS
    one grant, 2021 · $355k
  • DH
    DISTRICT HEALTH DEPT #10
    one grant, 2017 · $255k
  • HC
    HURON COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
    one grant, 2018 · $88k
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
Center for Family Health

The mission of the Center for Family Health is opening the door to health care for all.

Health
2
Michigan Health Improvement Alliance

To improve the health of people within our region through effective use of information and collaboration to establish our region as a community of health excellence through a comprehensive focus on population health, patient experience,…

Health
3
Great Lakes Bay Health Centers

To provide high quality health care to individuals and community groups in Saginaw, Bay, and other nearby counties. Services are provided without regard to race, beliefs or ability to pay.

Health
4
Midmichigan Health Services

To provide high quality community-oriented, patient-centered health services for all.

Health
5
InterCare Community Health Network

To promote the provision of high quality, comprehensive, and affordable health care that is coordinated, culturally and linguistically competent, and community directed for all medically underserved populations.

Health
6
Chippewa Health Access Coalition

The organization was formed for the purpose of providing access to quality health care for uninsured residents of chippewa, luce and mackinac counties of michigan by coordinating health care providers.

Health
7
Northwest Michigan Health Services Inc

To provide quality medical and dental primary care services to persons of all ages in northwest michigan regardless of ability to pay.

Health
8
Mgh Family Health Center Muskegon Family Care

Muskegon family care is a federally qualified health center with medical and dental clinics reaching out to uninsured and underinsured patients in muskegon county.

Health
9
Community Health Access Project Inc

The mission of CHAP is to eliminate health and social disparities in our community by finding those at risk, connecting them to care, and measuring the outcomes. We believe all communities can be transformed through the work of community…

Health
10
Mid-Michigan District Health Dept

To provide public health services to residents of Montcalm, Gratiot, and Clinton counties.

—
11
The Greater Detroit Health Transition Company

Gdahc mission: together with our partners, we empower and improve the health and economic vitality of individuals, organizations and communities by catalyzing the power of collaboration. gdahc vision: healthy people. healthy community.…

—
12
Oakland Integrated Healthcare Network

To provide for the health and wellness needs of the underserved of Oakland County through the provision of comprehensive, integrated primary, behavioral health, and dental care.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southeastern Mi Health Association; the most unlike its peers is Centro Multicultural La Familia 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

11 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. 11 of the 28 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
4/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOUTHEASTERN MI HEALTH ASSOCIATION: $450,132 · OtherSOUTHEASTERN MI HEALTH ASSOCIATIONMI COUNTY HEALTH DEPTS: $355,200 · OtherMI COUNTY HEALTH DEPTSDISTRICT HEALTH DEPT #10: $255,187 · OtherDISTRICT HEALTH DEPT #10DISTRICT HEALT DEPT 10: $131,573 · OtherDISTRICT HEALT DEPT 10HURON COUNTY HEALTH DEPT: $88,184 · OtherWESTERN UPPER PENISULA DHD: $85,110 · Other+15 more: $317,431 · Other+15 moreCENTER FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH & TRANSFORMATION: $10,000 · HealthNORTHERN MICHIGAN HEALTH CONSORTIUM: $10,000 · HealthHealth Net of West Michigan: $10,000 · HealthACCESS HEALTH: $10,000 · HealthGREATER FLINT HEALTH COALITION INC: $10,000 · HealthCENTRO MULTICULTURAL LA FAMILIA INC: $47,000 · Arts & CultureTHE JARC FOUNDATION: $44,000 · Human Services
Other$1,682,817Health$50,000Arts & Culture$47,000Human Services$44,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUTHEASTERN MI HEALTH ASSOCIATION: $450,132 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetCENTRO MULTICULTURAL LA FAMILIA INC: $47,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetTHE JARC FOUNDATION: $44,000 over 1y, 5.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY SPOKE: $37,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetBLUE WATER AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $28,000 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetNORTHERN MICHIGAN HEALTH CONSORTIUM: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetACCESS HEALTH: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetGREATER FLINT HEALTH COALITION INC: $10,000 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 SOUTHEASTERN MI HEALTH ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds CENTRO MULTICULTURAL LA FAMILIA INC ↗
  • Who funds THE JARC FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY SPOKE ↗
  • Who funds BLUE WATER AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH & TRANSFORMATION ↗
  • Who funds NORTHERN MICHIGAN HEALTH CONSORTIUM ↗
  • Who funds Health Net of West Michigan ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF BAY COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds ACCESS HEALTH ↗
  • Who funds GREATER FLINT HEALTH COALITION INC ↗

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Michigan Health Endowment FundMI13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Michigan Health Endowment Fund

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 Michigan Association for Local Public Health funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michigan Association for Local Public Health. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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, FY20–24
    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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Michigan Association for Local Public Health’s filings →

    More from the funding graph