Skip to content
Michigan League of Conservation Voters Education Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$384k
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$150k
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 2024.

Environment$904kCrime & Legal$124kPublic Benefit$85kHuman Services$77kAnimals$70kCivil Rights$65kArts & Culture$24kInternational$17kOther$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $324,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $383,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $59,500 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.
$62,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS$150,000
KANJI & KATZEN PLLC$62,000
HOOPER HATHAWAY PC$62,000
COUNT MI VOTE EDUCATION FUND$50,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ONE LOVE GLOBAL INC: $6k → 16%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $29k → 21%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $40k → 21%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $8k → 21%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.

79%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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

+39%
+55%

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.

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
EnvironmentCivil RightsEducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyAnimalsOther
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

  • ML
    MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $800k · revenue +703%
  • We the People of Detroit
    3× · 2018–2023 · $77k · revenue +422%
  • NW
    NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
    2× · 2018–2021 · $70k · revenue +87%

Funded once

  • EM
    EQUALITY MICHIGANgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue +55%
  • NC
    NORTH COUNTRY OPERA 2022 REVIVAL
    one grant, 2022 · $24k
  • MO
    MICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECTgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue +60%
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
Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice

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
2
Michigan Enviromental Council

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

Environment
3
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…

—
4
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
5
About Face Detroit
—
6
Zero Waste Detroit

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…

Environment
7
The Michigan Glass Project
Public Benefit
8
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,…

—
9
West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum

We promote business practices that advance climate leadership, social justice and the creation of a circular economy.

Education
10
Elevated Voices Inc

Voter education around policy

—
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
Acecmichigan

Association of consulting engineers

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan League of Conservation Voters Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

21 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. 21 of the 26 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

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

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
20/21
Grantees still filing
14/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $800,000 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC+3 more: $45,444 · Environment+3 moreHOOPER HATHAWAY PC: $62,000 · OtherHOOPER HATHAWAY PCKANJI & KATZEN PLLC: $62,000 · OtherKANJI & KATZEN PLL…WEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $36,806 · OtherWEST MICHIGAN ENVI…NORTH COUNTRY OPERA 2022 REVIVAL: $24,000 · OtherNORTH COUNTRY OPER…PEOPLES WATER BOARD COALITION: $16,806 · OtherPEOPLES WATER BOAR…CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $8,403 · OtherWARRENCONNER DEVELOPMENT COALITION: $8,403 · Other+3 more: $17,500 · Other+3 moreCOUNT MI VOTE: $85,000 · Civil RightsCOUNT MI …EQUALITY MICHIGAN: $25,000 · Civil RightsEQUALITY …AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $13,500 · Civil RightsAMERICAN …We the People of Detroit: $77,103 · Human ServicesENDLESS OPPORTUNITIES: $10,000 · Human ServicesONE LOVE GLOBAL: $6,000 · Human ServicesNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $70,000 · AnimalsMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT: $18,000 · PhilanthropyTHE JOYCE FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Philanthropy482 FORWARD: $10,000 · EducationFEEDOM FREEDOM GROWERS NON PROFIT SERVICE CORP: $6,069 · EducationWISDOM INSTITUTE: $6,069 · Education
Environment$845,444Other$235,918Civil Rights$123,500Human Services$93,103Animals$70,000Philanthropy$28,000Education$22,138

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 budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $800,000 over 7y, 10.0% of budgetCOUNT MI VOTE: $85,000 over 3y, 4.3% of budgetWe the People of Detroit: $77,103 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $70,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWEST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $36,806 over 2y, 2.8% of budgetEQUALITY MICHIGAN: $25,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetEAST MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COUNCIL INC: $18,972 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetSOUTHWEST DETROIT ENVIRONMENTAL VISION: $18,972 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetMICHIGAN ORGANIZING PROJECT: $18,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION INC: $13,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetENDLESS OPPORTUNITIES: $10,000 over 1y, 14% of budget482 FORWARD: $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE JOYCE FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWARRENCONNER DEVELOPMENT COALITION: $8,403 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE GREENING OF DETROIT: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFEEDOM FREEDOM GROWERS NON PROFIT SERVICE CORP: $6,069 over 1y, 3.6% of budgetNEXUS DETROIT: $6,000 over 1y, 59% of budgetONE LOVE GLOBAL: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetEcoWorks: $5,500 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.

The Fred & Barbara Er…The Skillman Foundati…Natural Resources Def…United Way for Southe…Tides FoundationMichigan VoicesThe Kresge FoundationCommunity Foundation …The Minneapolis Found…Michigan Enviromental…Allied Media Projects…Wayne-Metropolitan Co…
The Fred & Barbara Erb Family FoundationMI19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 League of Conservation Voters Education Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michigan League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%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
    3report 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 26 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 League of Conservation Voters Education’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