Skip to content
Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation

The mission of mmcdc is to assist communities and individuals achieve a better quality of life.

$810k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$100k
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.

Community Improvement$724kHousing & Shelter$561kHuman Services$145kPublic Benefit$100kEducation$90kRecreation & Sports$75kArts & Culture$65k
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 16 grants below total $793,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $810,307 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $17,307 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $240k
  • $50k–250k8 grants · $553k
$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$105M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
PRG INC$40,000
WHITE EARTH INVESTMNET INITIATIVE$40,000
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF DULUTH INC$30,000
MINNESOTA HOME OWNERSHIP CENTER$30,000
HEADWATERS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION$30,000
SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP$30,000
CENTRAL MN HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INC$20,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING INC: $50k → 11%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $25k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $20k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $5k → 10%DETROIT LAKES COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER: $5k → 10%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.

58%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 5 repeat orgs$743k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +50% since the first grant, against -11% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
1

Total granted

$1.0M
$65k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
-11%

Still filing today

80%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $678k 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
Housing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • WE
    WHITE EARTH INVESTMENT INITIATIVE
    7× · 2018–2024 · $501k · revenue +549%
  • DI
    DLCCC INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $195k · revenue +50%
  • OI
    OWATONNA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 761 FOUNDATION
    2× · 2022–2023 · $90k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • DM
    DETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INC
    one grant, 2020 · $65k · revenue -11%
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
Minnesota Housing Partnership

Minnesota housing partnership (mhp) expands housing and community development opportunity by leading collaborative work to promote systems change and grow develoopment capacity.

—
2
Minnesota Community Land Trust Coalition

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.

Housing & Shelter
3
Two Rivers Community Land Trust

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.

Housing & Shelter
4
Western Lake Superior Habitat for Humanity

Provide home ownership opportunities to low-income households and make repairs to existing homes for very low-income homeowners.

—
5
Community Housing Initiatives Inc

The mission of community housing initiatives, inc. is to leverage and maximize opportunities for vibrant and resilient communities.

Housing & Shelter
6
Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation

The mission of mmcdc is to assist communities and individuals achieve a better quality of life.

Community Improvement
7
Northern Homes Community Development Corporation

To create and preserve quality affordable housing options for northern michigan residents through education, development, and partnering with local communities.

Human Services
8
Twin Cities Community Land Bank Llc

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.

—
9
Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors Foundation Inc
—
10
East Central Minnesota Habitat for Humanity Inc

Bringing people together to build homes, communities and hope. building homes for the underprivileged.

—
11
Minnesota Homeowners Alliance Inc

To protect people's property rights, home values, and the real estate market on a statewide and local basis.

—
12
The Rondo Community Land Trust

Empowering with affordable housing. strengthen and preserve communities by providing and advocating for permanently affordable, sustainable housing for families and individuals with low to moderate incomes. promote the utilization of the…

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Neighborhood Housing Services; 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.
04the grantee network

16 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. 16 of the 19 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
8/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WHITE EARTH INVESTMENT INITIATIVE: $500,828 · Community ImprovementWHITE EARTH INVESTMENT INITIATIVEMinnesota CDFI Coalition: $98,000 · Community ImprovementMinnesota CDFI CoalitionNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF DULUTH ONE ROOF LENDING: $30,000 · Community ImprovementNW MN HOUSING COOPERATIVE: $205,629 · OtherNW MN HOUSING COOPERATIVECITY OF PERHAM: $100,000 · OtherCITY OF PERHAMOWATONNA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 761 FOUNDATION: $90,000 · OtherOWATONNA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT…THREE RIVERS COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $50,000 · OtherTHREE RIVERS COMMUNITY ACTION INCTCHFH LENDING INC: $50,000 · OtherTCHFH LENDING INCHEADWATERS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $30,000 · OtherBECKER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $24,999 · OtherCENTRAL MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INC: $20,000 · OtherDLCCC INC: $195,000 · Human ServicesDLCCC INCPROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING INC: $50,000 · Human ServicesPROJECT FOR PRI…COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES: $75,000 · Housing & ShelterCOMMUNITY N…PRG INC: $40,000 · Housing & ShelterPRG INCMINNESOTA HOME OWNERSHIP CENTER: $30,000 · Housing & ShelterMINNESOTA H…SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP: $30,000 · Housing & ShelterSOUTHWEST M…Build Wealth MN Inc: $75,000 · EducationDETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INC: $65,218 · Recreation & Sports
Community Improvement$628,828Other$570,628Human Services$245,000Housing & Shelter$175,000Education$75,000Recreation & Sports$65,218

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetWHITE EARTH INVESTMENT INITIATIVE: $500,828 over 7y, 14% of budgetDLCCC INC: $195,000 over 8y, 1.3% of budgetMinnesota CDFI Coalition: $98,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetOWATONNA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 761 FOUNDATION: $90,000 over 2y, 16% of budgetBuild Wealth MN Inc: $75,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCOMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES: $75,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetDETROIT MOUNTAIN RECREATION AREA INC: $65,218 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetPROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHREE RIVERS COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTCHFH LENDING INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetPRG INC: $40,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF DULUTH ONE ROOF LENDING: $30,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetMINNESOTA HOME OWNERSHIP CENTER: $30,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetSOUTHWEST MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP: $30,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetBECKER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $24,999 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetCENTRAL MINNESOTA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

Tchfh Lending IncGreater Minnesota Hou…Greater Green Bay Com…Family Housing FundNeighborhood Reinvest…Otto Bremer TrustSaint Paul & Minnesot…Local Initiatives Sup…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Tchfh Lending IncMN15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    5report 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 19 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 Midwest Minnesota Community Development’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