Loading…
· Public charity
MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION
MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION voters education fund is a non-partisan organization that works to promote a healthy and vital michigan by preserving and protecting our air, land and water through public education and civic engagement.
$384k
Granted FY2024
4
Grants
2
Communities
$150k
Largest
01What you fund
0185% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Environment$845kCivil Rights$124kHuman Services$93kAnimals$70kPhilanthropy$28kEducation$22kCommunity Improvement$8kFood & Nutrition$6kHousing & Shelter$6kOther$216k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2018
—
2019
—
2020
civil
2021
assitanceenvironment
2022
southwest detroitadvanceprotect
2023
genderenvironmentcitizens detroitwelfaresouthwest detroitprotect restoreaction
2024
action legallegal suitssuits pertainingpertaining enbridgeenbridge lineline pipeline
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 4 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
$62,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
- MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS$150,000
- HOOPER HATHAWAY PC$62,000
- KANJI & KATZEN PLLC$62,000
- COUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND$50,000
02The need
04
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 (FY18–23, $83k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21% — the area typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — 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.
79%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.1M · 8 repeat orgs$294k to everyone else
8 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
8
16
Total granted
$1.1M
$170k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+87%
+110%
Still filing today
88%
81%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $124k went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EnvironmentCivil RightsEducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyAnimalsOther
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
- MLMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS7× · 2017–2024 · $800k · revenue +703%
WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT3× · 2018–2023 · $77k · revenue +447%- NWNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION2× · 2018–2021 · $70k · revenue +87%
Funded once
- EMEQUALITY MICHIGANgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue +286%
- NCNORTH COUNTRY OPERAone grant, 2022 · $24k
- MOMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECTgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue +455%
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 Water Environment Association
To educate and advocate for preserving, restoring, and enhancing michigan's water resources.
Environment
2
Michigan Lakes and Streams
Preservation and protection of michigan inland lakes and streams
Environment
3
Michigan Section - American Water
Improving lives through the effective management of water, michigan's most vital resource.
Public Benefit
4
Detroiters Working for
The organization is known as the leader in the movement and is seen as the "go to" experts on environmental justice and sustainable redevelopment because of its knowledge and its network.
Health
5
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition
To end environmental injustice by empowering communities at the grassroots level.
Environment
6
Bulding Michigans Future
Building Michigan's Future has been organized to develop and advocate for legislation, regulations and government programs to protect Michigan's environment and natural resources, promote the enforcement of civil and constitutional rights,…
—
7
The Michigan Glass Project
Public Benefit
8
The Michigan Center for Civic Education
To promote and support the development of engaged, responsible citizens. The Michigan Center for Civic Education (MCCE) strengthens constitutional democracy through authentic civic education and professional learning. MCCE advances the…
—
9
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
Uniting citizens to conserve, protect and enhance michigan's natural resources and outdoor heritage.
Environment
10
Michigan Enviromental Council
Informing and educating the public and decision makers about enviromental issues.
Environment
11
Michigan Recycling Coalition
To foster effective resource use in Michigan by developing, supporting and educating a coalition of business, government, nonprofit & individual members working toward the common goals
Environment
12
Alumni Association of the University of Michigan
The Association is an independent worldwide organization that nurtures lifelong relationships with and among current and future Michigan alumni. As a committed partner of the University the Association offers programs of relevance and…
Education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan League of Conservation and the most unlike its peers is The Joyce Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
21 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/21
Grantees still filing
16/21
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Environment$845,444Other$235,918Civil Rights$123,500Human Services$93,103Animals$70,000Philanthropy$28,000Education$22,138
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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.
- Who funds MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ↗
- Who funds COUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds WEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds SOUTHWEST DETROIT ENVIRONMENTAL VISION ↗
- Who funds EAST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds PEOPLES WATER BOARD ↗
- Who funds ACLU ↗
- Who funds JOYCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ENDLESS OPPORTUNITIES ↗
- Who funds 482 FORWARD ↗
- Who funds EASTSIDE COMMUNITY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds GREENING OF DETROIT ↗
- Who funds WISDOM INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds FREEDOM FREEDOM GROWERS ↗
- Who funds ONE LOVE GLOBAL INC ↗
- Who funds NEXUS DETROIT ↗
- Who funds ECOWORKS ↗
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.
United Way for Southeastern MichiganMI17.4× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Tides Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · Michigan Enviromental Council · Michigan Voices · The Fred a & Barbara M Erb Family · The Minneapolis Foundation · Dte Energy Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast · New Venture Fund · The Ford Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation 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 organisation MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION 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
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: NEXUS DETROIT.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
insufficient risk
Limited financial data in public filings.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
4 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 460879742 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on NEXUS DETROIT, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
- WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 59% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Michigan League of Conservation?
Find your warmest path to Michigan League of Conservation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines