Skip to content
Michigan Health Leadership Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Michigan Health Leadership Fund

To advance the well-being of michigan residents through the promotion of sound public policies and responsible legislation.

$36k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$34k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
04Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Public Benefit$61kHealth$34kEmployment$20k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $33,764, the rows itemized in this filing. The $35,764 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,000 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.
$33,764
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY$33,764
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 88% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%BUILDING A BETTER ECONOMY: $10k → 12%GREAT LAKES JOB ALLIANCE: $20k → 16%JOBS FOR MICHIGAN COUNCIL: $12k → 16%GREAT LAKES FIRST FUND: $11k → 16%MICHIGAN STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY: $34k → 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 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
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…

—
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 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…

—
4
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…

—
5
Defend Your Vote

To oppose a Michigan ballot measure

—
6
Michigan Jobs Coalition

To promote job retention and creation in the State of Michigan

—
7
Michigan My Michigan

The organizations's primary exempt purpose is to research and promote issues and values concerning the citizens of the state of michigan.

—
8
The Michigan Glass Project
Public Benefit
9
Michigan Center of Accountability for Republicans

Social welfare and issue advocacy

Civil Rights
10
Protecting Detroits Future

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…

—
11
Lift Up Michigan

To promote the common good and general welfare of Michiganders through advocacy, research, and participation in public policy initiatives concerning the economy, health, safety, environment, civic engagement, and good governance.

Public Benefit
12
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…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan Values; the most unlike its peers is Michigan State Medical Society. 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, 2017–2024.

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 2024, 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MICHIGAN STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY: $33,764 · OtherMICHIGAN STATE MEDICAL SOCIETYGREAT LAKES JOBS ALLIANCE: $20,000 · OtherGREAT LAKES JOBS ALLIANCEJOBS FOR MICHIGAN COUNCIL: $11,500 · OtherJOBS FOR MICHIGAN COUNCILGREAT LAKES FIRST FUND: $11,000 · OtherGREAT LAKES FIRST FUNDPreserve Michigans Future Fund: $10,000 · OtherPreserve Michigans Future FundBuilding a Better Economy: $10,000 · OtherBuilding a Better EconomyMichigan Values: $10,000 · OtherMichigan ValuesGRAND RAPIDS AREA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FUND GRACE FUND: $8,500 · OtherGRAND RAPIDS AREA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FUND GRACE FUND
Other$114,764

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMICHIGAN STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY: $33,764 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetGREAT LAKES JOBS ALLIANCE: $20,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetJOBS FOR MICHIGAN COUNCIL: $11,500 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetGREAT LAKES FIRST FUND: $11,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetPreserve Michigans Future Fund: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBuilding a Better Economy: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMichigan Values: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetGRAND RAPIDS AREA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FUND GRACE FUND: $8,500 over 1y, 4.5% 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.

Michigan Beer & Wine …Coalition to Promote …Citizens for Energizi…Michigan Energy First
Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers AssnMI15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2022
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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, 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.
    04Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Michigan Health Leadership Fund?

    Find your warmest path to Michigan Health Leadership Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 8 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 Health Leadership’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