Skip to content

· Public charity

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.

$1.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$1.2M
Largest
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$3.1MPublic Benefit$431kHuman Services$150kAnimals$15k
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $50k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $195k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.2M
$71,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CONSERVATION VOTERS OF MICHIGAN PAC$1,200,000
EVERGREEN AUCTION$124,000
COUNTERSPARK INC$71,000
VOTE SOLAR$20,000
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY ACTION FUND$15,000
VOTERS FOR RELIABLE LOW COST ENERGY$15,000
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 (FY24–24, $124k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%EVERGREEN AUCTION: $124k → 14%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
Policy Action for a Clean Tomorrow Inc

Clean Tomorrow advances policies that reduce climate emissions by turning policy ambition into action. We work to catalyze rapid change that will accelerate the innovation and growth of clean energy.

Environment
2
Clean Future Action Fund Inc

To educate, lobby and advocate for policies that advance clean energy development and deployment.

Environment
3
Conservatives for a Clean Energy Future

CCEF works with policymakers and stakeholders across the nation to promote policies that secure affordable, reliable, and increasingly efficient and clean energy. Commonsense, market-driven energy policies will create local jobs, spark…

—
4
Clean Fuels Michigan

To accelerate the transition to clean transportation in michigan. we advocate for the suite of alternative fuels including biofuels, hydrogen, propane, natural gas, and electric vehicles.

Community Improvement
5
United for Clean Power

United for Clean Power is focused on public policies that build a 21st century energy future.

Environment
6
California Environmental Voters

To increase public awareness of elected officials' performances on environmental issues, to influence decisions of public officials on environmental legislation and policy, and to engage in related social welfare activities to promote and…

Civil Rights
7
America Votes

The Organization was established to coordinate and promote progressive issues, policies, initiatives, and referenda, and to pursue electoral reform that expands access to the ballot.

Community Improvement
8
Energy Action Fund

Energy action fund advocates for a clean and equitable energy future to tackle the climate crisis.

Environment
9
Wra Action Fund

The mission of the WRA Action Fund is to advance solutions to climate change and its impacts.

—
10
American Common Ground Council Inc

ConservAmerica is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the development and advancement of market based energy, environmental, and conservation policy.

Environment
11
Electoral Collective Action

Electoral Collective Action coordinates a broad-based coalition of existing entities active in the climate justice and community organizing space to raise public awareness and educational opportunities.

Civil Rights
12
Climate Equity Action Fund

The climate equity action fund (ceaf) works hand-in-hand with community-based partners in critical states across the country to secure and sustain policy wins for climate and clean energy. building on over a decade of trust with leading…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Michigan Civic Action Fund; the most unlike its peers is Our Water Our Democracy. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 8 of the 11 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
2/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONSERVATION VOTERS OF MICHIGAN PAC: $2,803,200 · OtherCONSERVATION VOTERS OF MICHIGAN PACRoad to Michigan's Future: $250,000 · OtherRoad to Michigan's FutureMICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE: $150,000 · Other+2 more: $66,268 · OtherMICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND: $130,000 · Civil RightsCounterspark Inc: $71,000 · EnvironmentVote Solar: $20,000 · EnvironmentNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ACTION FUND: $18,515 · EnvironmentNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY ACTION FUND: $15,000 · EnvironmentEVERGREEN ACTION: $124,000 · Human Services
Other$3,269,468Civil Rights$130,000Environment$124,515Human Services$124,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRoad to Michigan's Future: $250,000 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetMICHIGAN CIVIC ACTION FUND: $130,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetEVERGREEN ACTION: $124,000 over 1y, 6.5% of budgetCounterspark Inc: $71,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetVote Solar: $20,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY ACTION FUND: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Sixteen Thirty FundDC15.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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.

    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 11 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’ filings →

    More from the funding graph