· Public charity
Michigan League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 4 grants below total $324,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $383,500 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $59,500 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS | $150,000 |
| KANJI & KATZEN PLLC | $62,000 |
| HOOPER HATHAWAY PC | $62,000 |
| COUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND | $50,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY18–23, $83k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $124k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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 VOTERS INC7× · 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 +55%
- NCNORTH COUNTRY OPERA 2022 REVIVALone grant, 2022 · $24k
- MOMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECTgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue +60%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
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.
Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.
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…
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…
Zero Waste Detroit (ZWD) is a coalition of over 20 community, environmental, and environmental justice organizations. Our goal is to move the City of Detroit to a solid waste management system that prioritizes recycling and materials…
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,…
Voter education around policy
We promote business practices that advance climate leadership, social justice and the creation of a circular economy.
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
Association of consulting engineers
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan League of Conservation Voters Inc 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.
21 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. 21 of the 26 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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 INC ↗
- Who funds COUNT MI VOTE ↗
- Who funds We the People of Detroit ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds WEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds EQUALITY MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds EAST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds SOUTHWEST DETROIT ENVIRONMENTAL VISION ↗
- Who funds MICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds PEOPLES WATER BOARD COALITION ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ENDLESS OPPORTUNITIES ↗
- Who funds THE JOYCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds 482 FORWARD ↗
- Who funds WARRENCONNER DEVELOPMENT COALITION ↗
- Who funds THE GREENING OF DETROIT ↗
- Who funds FEEDOM FREEDOM GROWERS NON PROFIT SERVICE CORP ↗
- Who funds WISDOM INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds NEXUS DETROIT ↗
- Who funds ONE LOVE GLOBAL ↗
- 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.
Open a dossier: The Fred & Barbara Erb Family Foundation · The Skillman Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Tides Foundation · Michigan Voices · The Kresge Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · The Minneapolis Foundation · Michigan Enviromental Council · Allied Media Projects Inc · Wayne-Metropolitan Community Action Agency 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 League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 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.
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.