· Public charity
Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation
The mission of mmcdc is to assist communities and individuals achieve a better quality of life.
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 16 grants below total $793,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $810,307 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $17,307 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.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k8 grants · $240k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $553k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CITY OF PERHAM | $100,000 |
| MN CDFI COALITION | $98,000 |
| COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES | $75,000 |
| BUILD WEALTH MN INC | $75,000 |
| WHITE EARTH INVESTMNET INITIATIVE | $55,000 |
| THREE RIVERS COMMUNITY ACTION | $50,000 |
| TCHFH LENDING INC | $50,000 |
| PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING INC | $50,000 |
| WHITE EARTH INVESTMNET INITIATIVE | $40,000 |
| PRG INC | $40,000 |
| SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP | $30,000 |
| MINNESOTA HOME OWNERSHIP CENTER | $30,000 |
| HEADWATERS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION | $30,000 |
| NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF DULUTH INC | $30,000 |
| DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER | $20,000 |
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 (FY17–24, $245k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +50% since the first grant, against -11% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 13 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, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $678k 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
- WEWHITE EARTH INVESTMENT INITIATIVE7× · 2018–2024 · $501k · revenue +549%
- DIDLCCC INC8× · 2017–2024 · $195k · revenue +50%
- OIOWATONNA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 761 FOUNDATION2× · 2022–2023 · $90k · revenue +17%
Funded once
- DMDETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INCone grant, 2020 · $65k · revenue -11%
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.
Minnesota housing partnership (mhp) expands housing and community development opportunity by leading collaborative work to promote systems change and grow develoopment capacity.
To provide permanently affordable housing alternatives for low and moderate income individuals, families, and households earning up to 80% of median income in washington county, minnesota.
To promote, facilitate and expand the community land trust sector in minnesota by supporting its members to provide permanently affordable homeownership for people with low and moderate incomes.
The mission of community housing initiatives, inc. is to leverage and maximize opportunities for vibrant and resilient communities.
Provide home ownership opportunities to low-income households and make repairs to existing homes for very low-income homeowners.
To create and preserve quality affordable housing options for northern michigan residents through education, development, and partnering with local communities.
Habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, community, and hope. through advocacy, collaboration, and leadership, hfh-mn advances the work of minnesota's habitat for humanity affiliates to create and preserve affordable…
Mn community measurement empowers stakeholders with meaningful information to drive improvement.
The mission of mmcdc is to assist communities and individuals achieve a better quality of life.
The twin cities community land bank llc captures strategic real estate opportunities to benefit people with low to moderate incomes, prioritizing people of color and populations facing barriers.
Bringing people together to build homes, communities and hope. building homes for the underprivileged.
To provide and be dedicated to the development, preservation and management of decent, safe and affordable housing for lower income households in north dakota.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southwest Minnesota Housing Partnership and the most unlike its peers is Owatonna Independent School District No 761 Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 19 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 WHITE EARTH INVESTMENT INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds DLCCC INC ↗
- Who funds Minnesota CDFI Coalition ↗
- Who funds OWATONNA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 761 FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES ↗
- Who funds Build Wealth MN Inc ↗
- Who funds DETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INC ↗
- Who funds PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING INC ↗
- Who funds TCHFH LENDING INC ↗
- Who funds THREE RIVERS COMMUNITY ACTION INC ↗
- Who funds PRG INC ↗
- Who funds MINNESOTA HOME OWNERSHIP CENTER ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF DULUTH ONE ROOF LENDING ↗
- Who funds SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds BECKER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
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: Tchfh Lending Inc · Greater Minnesota Housing Fund · Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc · Family Housing Fund · Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation · Otto Bremer Trust · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation 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.