Skip to content
Plinth
Foundation DossiersMostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →
Plinth

· Public charity

Michigan Enviromental Council

Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.

$359k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What you fundRead
02The needRead
03Your edgeRead
04Your fieldRead
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

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

Environment$1.7MHealth$145kFood & Nutrition$39kPhilanthropy$15k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 8 grants below total $336,250 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $359,193 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $22,943 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $86k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $250k
$37,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$7.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SIERRA CLUB CANADA FOUNDATION$100,000
MEC ACTION FUND$100,000
SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION$50,000
GROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT$37,500
CLEAN WATER FUND$18,750
UPPER PENINSULA COALITION$10,000
MICHIGAN CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK$10,000
PLANET DETROIT$10,000
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–18, $27k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 93% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY: $2k → 9%ALLEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER: $25k → 16%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

65%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.2M · 20 repeat orgs$681k to everyone else

20 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

20
27

Total granted

$1.2M
$511k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+46%

Still filing today

85%
81%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $170k 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
EnvironmentHealthCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyAnimalsHuman ServicesOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

  • TU
    TROUT UNLIMITED MICHIGAN COUNCIL
    4× · 2017–2020 · $138k · revenue +77%
  • MU
    MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS
    4× · 2017–2020 · $138k · revenue +9%
  • EC
    ECOLOGY CENTER
    3× · 2017–2019 · $97k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • GL
    GREEN LIVING SCIENCEgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $76k · revenue +321% · 45% of their budget
  • FL
    FOR LOVE OF WATER
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue -14%
  • MO
    MICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECTgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +255%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Michigan Enviromental Council

Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.

Environment
2
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition

Works to end environmental injustice by empowering communities at the grassroots level.the corporation is organzied exclusively for charitable, religious, educational and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the makeing of…

Environment
3
Coalition to Protect Michigan Resources

The coalition to protect michigan resources's mission is to be a strong voice for the equitable co-management of michigan's fisheries, with both the great lakes and inland lakes and streams, to insure that conservation principles remain in…

Environment
4
Metropolitan Affairs Coalition

The work program of metropolitan affairs coalition ("mac") is driven by its coalition of business, labor, government, and education leaders; this coalition is dedicated to equity and sustainability, creating economic opportunity, improving…

Community Improvement
5
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…

—
6
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
7
Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc

It is our mission at huron pines to conserve and enhance northern michigan's natural resources to ensure healthy water, protected places and vibrant communities. for alomst 50 years, our work across the forests, lakes and streams of…

Environment
8
Michigan League of Conservation Voters Inc

A non-partisan political organization that works to elect and hold accountable public officials who will champion a healthy and vital michigan by preserving and protecting our air, land and water.

Environment
9
Minnesota Environmental Partnership

The minnesota environmental partnership is a coalition that strengthens member effectiveness and builds collective power to secure a healthy environment for all minnesotans.

Environment
10
Fresh Energy

Shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies.

Environment
11
Ann Arbor for Public Power

Ann Arbor for Public Power advocates for the creation of a municipal electric utility within the city of Ann Arbor. It also educates the community on the benefits of public power, the dangers of climate change, how Ann Arbor is currently…

Public Benefit
12
The Michigan Glass Project
Public Benefit

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan League of Conservation Voters Education Fund and the most unlike its peers is National Wildlife Federation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number22%5%<5yr14%5%5–10yr18%20%10–20yr17%30%20–35yr14%20%35–55yr15%20%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value22%3%<5yr14%13%5–10yr18%14%10–20yr17%18%20–35yr14%29%35–55yr15%23%55yr+

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 16% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
2%1/49
the rest of the field
16%
9,095/58,695

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

42 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 42 of the 51 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
17
Early backer (in before they grew)
41/42
Grantees still filing
30/42
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS — $137,500 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBSTIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL — $137,500 · EnvironmentTIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCILECOLOGY CENTER — $96,500 · EnvironmentECOLOGY CENTERGREEN LIVING SCIENCE — $76,000 · EnvironmentGREEN LIVING SCIENCECLEAN WATER FUND — $53,750 · EnvironmentCLEAN WATER FUNDSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION — $50,000 · EnvironmentSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATIONFOR LOVE OF WATER — $50,000 · EnvironmentFOR LOVE OF WATEREAST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL INC — $37,000 · Environment+9 more — $112,720 · Environment+9 moreSIERRA CLUB CANADA FOUNDATION — $100,000 · OtherSIERRA CLUB CANADA FOUNDATIONGROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES INC — $77,373 · OtherGROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIEN…SIERRA CLUB — $39,705 · OtherSIERRA CLUBMICHIGAN AGRI-BUSINESS ASSOCIATION — $30,000 · OtherMICHIGAN AGRI-BUSINESS ASSOCIA…UPPER PENINSULA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION — $25,000 · OtherWEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION — $24,770 · OtherMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY — $18,659 · OtherBLACK OWNERS OF SOLAR SERVICES — $41,825 · OtherBLACK OWNERS OF SOLAR SERVICESAllen Neighborhood Center — $25,000 · OtherGREATER LANSING FOOD BANK — $25,000 · OtherProgress Michigan Education Inc — $20,000 · Other+11 more — $90,273 · Other+11 moreTHE MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND — $200,000 · Community ImprovementTHE MICHIGAN E…Northend Christian Community Development Corporation — $50,000 · Community ImprovementNorthend Chris…TROUT UNLIMITED MICHIGAN COUNCIL — $137,500 · AnimalsTROUT UNLI…NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $39,568 · AnimalsNATIONAL W…TRINITY HEALTH - MICHIGAN — $50,000 · HealthDETROITERS WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE — $32,500 · HealthMichigan Physical Fitness Health and Sports Foundation — $20,000 · HealthEVERGREEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT IN — $5,000 · HealthMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT — $50,000 · PhilanthropyGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP — $14,833 · PhilanthropyLIFE REMODELED — $42,394 · Housing & ShelterHEALTHY HOMES COALITION OF WEST MICHIGAN INC — $8,750 · Housing & Shelter
Environment$750,970Other$517,605Community Improvement$250,000Animals$177,068Health$107,500Philanthropy$64,833Housing & Shelter$51,144

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTHE MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ACTION FUND — $200,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetTROUT UNLIMITED MICHIGAN COUNCIL — $137,500 over 4y, 8.5% of budgetMICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS — $137,500 over 4y, 2.9% of budgetTIP OF THE MITT WATERSHED COUNCIL — $137,500 over 4y, 2.5% of budgetECOLOGY CENTER — $96,500 over 3y, 4.0% of budgetGROUNDWORK CENTER FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES INC — $77,373 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetGREEN LIVING SCIENCE — $76,000 over 1y, 45% of budgetCLEAN WATER FUND — $53,750 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION — $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFOR LOVE OF WATER — $50,000 over 1y, 5.8% of budgetTRINITY HEALTH - MICHIGAN — $50,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNorthend Christian Community Development Corporation — $50,000 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT — $50,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetLIFE REMODELED — $42,394 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetBLACK OWNERS OF SOLAR SERVICES — $41,825 over 1y, 19% of budgetSIERRA CLUB — $39,705 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION — $39,568 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetEAST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL INC — $37,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetDETROITERS WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE — $32,500 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetMICHIGAN AGRI-BUSINESS ASSOCIATION — $30,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetGREATER LANSING FOOD BANK — $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAllen Neighborhood Center — $25,000 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetUPPER PENINSULA ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION — $25,000 over 2y, 44% of budgetWEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION — $24,770 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetProgress Michigan Education Inc — $20,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetMichigan Physical Fitness Health and Sports Foundation — $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMichigan Clinicians for Climate Action — $16,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetCLINTON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL — $15,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE ROUGE — $15,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetDucks Unlimited Inc — $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKALAMAZOO RIVER WATERSHED PUBLIC ADVISORY COUNCIL — $15,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP — $14,833 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSOUTHWEST DETROIT ENVIRONMENTAL VISION — $12,750 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMICHIGAN CONSERVATIVE ENERGY FORUM — $12,000 over 1y, 42% of budgetSOULARDARITY — $8,970 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND — $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetEVERGREEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT IN — $5,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC POLICY — $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Community Foundation …Charles Stewart Mott …Dte Energy FoundationThe Kresge FoundationUnited States Energy …The Fred & Barbara Er…Americana FoundationThe Ralph C Wilson Jr…The Minneapolis Found…Windward FundThe Porter Family Fou…Great Lakes Aquatic H…
Community Foundation for Southeast MichiganMI34.3× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Charles Stewart Mott Foundation · Dte Energy Foundation · The Kresge Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · The Fred & Barbara Erb Family Foundation · Americana Foundation · The Ralph C Wilson Jr Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · Windward Fund · The Porter Family Foundation · Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund Inc

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization Michigan Enviromental Council funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%your 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
    11report 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

    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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 51 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    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