Skip to content
Michigan Citizens for Better Health at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Michigan Citizens for Better Health

To operate exclusively for the promotion of civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of, and visitors to the State of Michigan; To support public policies on the federal, state, and local levels, that will bring about civic betterments and social improvements to Michigan residents;…

$789k
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$300k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $765,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $789,000 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $24,000 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $65k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $400k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$456k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN EMPOWERMENT FUND$300,000
GRAND RAPIDS AREA COMM ENGAGE$100,000
MI DEMOCRATIC COMM ADM ACCT$100,000
BUILDING A BETTER ECONOMY$50,000
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT$50,000
MICHIGAN VALUES$50,000
THE EMPOWERMENT PLAN$50,000
GREAT LAKES WORKS FUND$25,000
MOVING MIDMICHIGAN FORWARD$10,000
ALLIANCE FOR A BRIGHTER TOMOR$10,000
MICHIGAN JOBS COALITION$10,000
FIGHTING FOR A BETTER MICHIGA$10,000
02The need
02

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 (FY24–24, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 19%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 19%THE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $50k → 21%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 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
Michigan Rising Action

Michigan Rising Action is focused on holding special interest networks accountable and advancing conservative principles. We're fighting for limited government, lowering taxes, fighting government over-regulation that stifles freedom, free…

—
2
Put Progress First

To operate exclusively for the promotion of civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of, and visitors to, the State of Michigan; To support public policies on the federal, state, and…

—
3
Michigan Center of Accountability for Republicans

Social welfare and issue advocacy

Civil Rights
4
Defend Your Vote

To oppose a Michigan ballot measure

—
5
Protecting Michigans Future Fund

To operate exclusively for the promotion of civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of, and visitors to the State of Michigan; To support public policies on the federal, state, and…

—
6
Michigan Citizens for Better Health

To operate exclusively for the promotion of civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of, and visitors to the State of Michigan; To support public policies on the federal, state, and…

—
7
Making Michigan Stronger

To research and promote issues concerning education, economic opportunity, individual freedoms and public policy within the state of michigan and to support activities and programs that improve the quality and effectiveness of local and…

—
8
Michigan Courage Fund

To promote civic action and social welfare by promoting the common good and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the State of Michigan; to support public policies on the federal, state, and local levels that will bring about…

—
9
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
10
Prosperity Michigan Inc

Prosperity michigan is the nonpartisan voice advocating for economic growth and opportunity for all michiganders, we make a pro-opportunity agenda front and center with elected officials, candidates, and voters by mobilizing citizens as a…

—
11
Making Government Accountable
Philanthropy
12
Jobs for Michigan

Clean Jobs for Michigan is building a future we can all be proud of. Through advocating for clean water clean energy and good-paying clean jobs were working to build a Michigan that will sustain our natural resources and hardworking…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan Values; the most unlike its peers is The Empowerment Plan. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 12 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
2/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GRAND RAPIDS AREA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FUND GRACE FUND: $100,000 · OtherGRAND RAPIDS AREA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FUND GRACE FUNDMICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE: $100,000 · OtherMICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEEAccountability for Government Fund Inc: $50,000 · OtherAccountability for Government Fund IncMichigan Values: $50,000 · OtherMichigan ValuesBuilding a Better Economy: $50,000 · OtherBuilding a Better EconomyGreat Lakes Works: $25,000 · OtherGreat Lakes Works+4 more: $40,000 · Other+4 moreMICHIGAN EMPOWERMENT FUND: $300,000 · Public BenefitMICHIGAN EMPOWERMENT FUNDTHE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $50,000 · Human Services
Other$415,000Public Benefit$300,000Human Services$50,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMICHIGAN EMPOWERMENT FUND: $300,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetGRAND RAPIDS AREA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FUND GRACE FUND: $100,000 over 1y, 46% of budgetTHE EMPOWERMENT PLAN: $50,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetAccountability for Government Fund Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetMichigan Values: $50,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetBuilding a Better Economy: $50,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetMOVING MIDMICHIGAN FORWARD: $10,000 over 1y, 8.2% of budgetFIGHTING FOR A BETTER MICHIGAN FUND: $10,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetMichigan Jobs Coalition: $10,000 over 1y, 4.8% 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.

Coalition to Promote …Michigan Beer & Wine …Michigan Energy FirstSports Betting Allian…Citizens for Energizi…
Coalition to Promote Public Entity Risk PoolsMI17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Coalition to Promote Public Entity Risk Pools · Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Assn · Michigan Energy First · Sports Betting Alliance · Citizens for Energizing Michigan's Economy

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

2024
’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY21–25
    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 12 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Michigan Citizens for Better Health’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