Skip to content
Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness Inc

To serve as an inclusive statewide voice to improve systems and support communities to prevent and end homelessness in a way that leaves no one behind.

$167k
Granted FY2021
9
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$28k
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 2021.

Housing & Shelter$341kHuman Services$68kPhilanthropy$18kCivil Rights$18kEmployment$10k
02FY2021 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $141,385, the rows itemized in this filing. The $166,994 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $25,609 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 · FY2021

  • Under $10k3 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $123k
$10,546
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NORTHEAST MICHIGAN COMM SERVICE AGENCY$28,300
TRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES$27,628
NORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY$25,225
ALGER-MARQUETTE COMM ACTION BOARD$21,274
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF JACKSONHILLSDALE$10,546
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN$10,412
COMMUNITIES FIRST$6,000
HOMELESS ACTION NETWORK OF DETROIT$6,000
COMMUNITY AND HOME SUPPORTS$6,000
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 (FY17–21, $380k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 15%. 35% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 15%NORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $25k → 10%MONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM: $5k → 10%ALGER-MARQUETTE COMM ACTION BOARD: $21k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF JACKSONHILLSDALE: $11k → 13%TRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES: $28k → 13%NORTHEAST MICHIGAN COMM SERVICE AGENCY: $28k → 16%HOMELESS ACTION NETWORK OF DETROIT: $6k → 21%NORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $23k → 10%ALGER-MARQUETTE COMM ACTION BOARD: $9k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF JACKSON: $5k → 13%TRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES: $20k → 13%NE MICHIGAN COMM SERVICE AGENCY: $27k → 16%NW MICHIGAN COMM ACTION AGENCY: $19k → 10%ALGER-MARQUETTE COMM ACTION BOARD: $8k → 11%TRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES: $19k → 13%NE MICHIGAN COMM SERVICE AGENCY: $25k → 16%NW MICHIGAN COMM ACTION AGENCY: $15k → 10%ALGER-MARQUETTE COMM ACTION BOARD: $5k → 11%TRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES: $18k → 13%NORTHEAST MICHIGAN COMM SERVICE AGENCY: $23k → 16%NW MICHIGAN COMM ACTION AGENCY: $15k → 10%NE MICHIGAN COMM SERVICE AGENCY: $20k → 16%COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF JACKSONHILLSDALE: $6k → 16%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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$398k · 7 repeat orgs$58k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +35% since the first grant, against -6% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2021, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
3

Total granted

$398k
$29k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
-6%

Still filing today

86%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 80% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $28k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyEmploymentOther
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

  • NM
    NORTHEAST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $123k · revenue +41%
  • NM
    NORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION
    5× · 2017–2021 · $97k · revenue +35%
  • AM
    ALGER MARQUETTE COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD
    4× · 2018–2021 · $43k · revenue +46%

Funded once

  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF MASON COUNTY
    one grant, 2017 · $18k · revenue -19%
  • MC
    MONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +105%
  • ES
    EMERGENCY SHELTER SERVICES INC
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue -6%
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
Northwest Michigan Supportive Housing

To provide housing and case management services for the homeless and mentally ill within the community.

Human Services
2
Northern Homes Community Development Corporation

To create and preserve quality affordable housing options for northern michigan residents through education, development, and partnering with local communities.

Human Services
3
Gw Homeless Services of Northern Michigan Inc

The mission of gw homeless services of northern michigan, inc is to provide safe, supportive shelter to individuals experiencing homelessness.the 2023 990 was for 10/1-12/31/23 due to an accounting period change.

Human Services
4
North West Housing Partnership

Through a fiscally responsible and multi-faceted approach, north west housing partnership nwhp promotes public and private partnerships that create and preserve cost-effective quality diverse housing for low to moderate-income residents…

—
5
United Community Housing Coalition

To help low-income residents in detroit and wayne county stay in their homes and strengthen their communities, through representation, support, and ownership. we believe that having a place to live is a basic human right, and are…

Housing & Shelter
6
Northwest Michigan Rural Housing Partnership

To help provide safe, accessible, and affordable housing in Northwest Michigan.

Housing & Shelter
7
Neighborhood Housing Services of Beloit Inc

Nhs is working to build the beloit, wisconsin community through programs that support home ownership, residents, and community development. nhs provides high-quality housing, lending, and educational opportunities and resources.

Housing & Shelter
8
Habitat for Humanity of Michigan Inc

Our mission is to assist our affiliates to increase capacity to build simple decent homes in partnership with people in need in the State of Michigan.

Housing & Shelter
9
Area Agency On Aging of Western Michigan Inc

Through internal expertise, external partnerships, and advocacy, the area agency on aging of western michigan provides older adults, adults with disabilities, and their caregivers equitable access to services that promote independence and…

Human Services
10
Community Action Partnership of Middle Alabama Inc

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

—
11
Southwest Michigan Community Action Agency

Southwest michigan community action agency's purpose is to provide assistance to low income individuals in southwest michigan

Community Improvement
12
211 Northeast Michigan

To provide Northeast Michigan with referrals and information to assist with essential needs.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community & Home Supports Inc; the most unlike its peers is United Way of Mason County. 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
9/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NORTHEAST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY INC: $122,543 · Human ServicesNORTHEAST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY INCNORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION: $96,991 · Human ServicesNORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTIONTRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES: $84,467 · Human ServicesTRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICESALGER MARQUETTE COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD: $42,819 · Human ServicesALGER MARQUETTE COMMUNITY ACTION BOARDCOMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $21,546 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY+3 more: $17,400 · Human ServicesHOUSING SERVICES OF MID MICHIGAN: $16,797 · Housing & ShelterCommunities First Inc: $6,000 · Housing & ShelterEMERGENCY SHELTER SERVICES INC: $5,400 · Housing & ShelterUNITED WAY OF MASON COUNTY: $18,365 · PhilanthropyCHANNEL HOUSING MINISTRIES INC: $12,884 · OtherGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC: $10,412 · Employment
Human Services$385,766Housing & Shelter$28,197Philanthropy$18,365Other$12,884Employment$10,412

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 budgetNORTHEAST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE AGENCY INC: $122,543 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetNORTHWEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION: $96,991 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetTRUENORTH COMMUNITY SERVICES: $84,467 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetALGER MARQUETTE COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD: $42,819 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $21,546 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF MASON COUNTY: $18,365 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetHOUSING SERVICES OF MID MICHIGAN: $16,797 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetCHANNEL HOUSING MINISTRIES INC: $12,884 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetGOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF NORTHERN MICHIGAN INC: $10,412 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY & HOME SUPPORTS INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCommunities First Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHomeless Action Network of Detroit: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMONROE COUNTY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM: $5,400 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEMERGENCY SHELTER SERVICES INC: $5,400 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

DTE Energy FoundationMichigan Community Ac…Consumers Energy Foun…United Way for Southe…Community Foundation …Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
DTE Energy FoundationMI17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: DTE Energy Foundation · Michigan Community Action Inc · Consumers Energy Foundation · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · 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 Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    1report 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 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2021, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness’ 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