Skip to content

· Public charity

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.

$194k
Granted FY2023
7
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$43k
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 2023.

Housing & Shelter$138kCommunity Improvement$122kEnvironment$117kFood & Nutrition$78kEducation$50kHuman Services$36kPublic Benefit$30kPublic Safety & Disaster$15kOther$0
02FY2023 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $161,250, the rows itemized in this filing. The $193,980 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $32,730 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 · FY2023

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $155k
$25,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$2.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SPOKANE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY$42,500
HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER$37,500
ACER$30,000
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION HOUSING AUTHORITY$25,000
CITY OF WABASHA$10,000
CITY OF WINNEBAGO$10,000
Individual grant recipient$6,250
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 (FY22–22, $31k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%RURAL RESOURCES COMMUNITY ACTION: $31k → 13%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
WA
MN
IL
SD
CA
KS
OK
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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 5% of Minnesota Housing Partnership’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Minnesota Housing Partnershiplessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 5.1% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

43%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$249k · 8 repeat orgs$329k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +42% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2023, 6 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
20

Total granted

$249k
$235k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+42%
+14%

Still filing today

50%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $94k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Housing & ShelterEducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • RE
    ROSEBUD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP
    2× · 2021–2022 · $65k
  • HJ
    HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER
    5× · 2021–2025 · $58k · revenue +53%
  • AC
    AFRICAN CAREER EDUCATION & RESOURCES IN
    5× · 2021–2025 · $50k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $53k
  • RR
    RURAL RESOURCES COMMUNITY ACTION
    one grant, 2022 · $31k · revenue +12%
  • UB
    UPGROW BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL INC
    one grant, 2022 · $25k
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
Northeast Kingdom Development Corporation

Fostering, encouraging and assisting the physical location of business enterprises within the States of Vermont and New Hampshire, and having its principal purpose be industrial and economic development of one or more political…

Employment
2
African Development Center

Grow businesses, build wealth and increase reinvestement in the african communities of minnesota

Human Services
3
Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation - Parent

To provide decent and affordable housing to low and moderate income persons.

Housing & Shelter
4
Near North Development Corporation

Inner-city housing and economic development focusing on low-income individuals.

Community Improvement
5
New Community Development Corporation

Provides safe, affordable and quality housing for low and moderate income families in Douglas & Sarpy NE & Pottawattamie County IA, with an emphasis in Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area.

Housing & Shelter
6
Bear Creek Development Center Inc

Bear Creek Development Center was established by Bear Creek Christian Church to create innovative, holistic, and truly affordable housing solutions with families and individuals in the Rochester MN area.

—
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
Northeast Iowa Community Action Corp

Through dynamic partnerships, quality family services, advocacy and education, neicac advances community development and improves social and economic conditions for individuals and families with limited resources.

Human Services
9
Hope Community Development Corporation

Community & Economic Development through Affordable Housing

Human Services
10
Community Economic Development Associate

Ceda is a locally governed support team of community and economic development professionals providing expertise and capacity building for rural economic regeneration and revitalization.

Community Improvement
11
Valley Community Development Corporation

Valley community development seeks to empower low and moderate income people and underserved populations. we accomplish these goals by focusing on three areas of community development; homeownership support including first-time homebuyer…

Housing & Shelter
12
Near North Development Corporation

To invest in people and property through the development, maintenance, and improvement of quality mixed-income housing and related supportive services for persons of very low and moderate income in the North Town area.

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Rural Resources Community Action; the most unlike its peers is Kootasca Community Action Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 34 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ROSEBUD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $64,929 · OtherROSEBUD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPIndividual grant recipient: $52,579 · OtherIndividual grant recipientSPOKANE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY: $42,500 · OtherSPOKANE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITYUPGROW BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL INC: $25,188 · OtherUPGROW BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL INCWHITE EARTH RESERVATION HOUSING AUTHORITY: $25,000 · OtherWHITE EARTH RESERVATION HOUSING AUTHORITYIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherCITY OF COUNCIL GROVE: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $13,915 · Other+17 more: $122,238 · Other+17 moreAFRICAN CAREER EDUCATION & RESOURCES IN: $50,000 · EducationAFRICAN CARE…New American Development Cente: $16,834 · EducationNew American…HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER: $57,500 · Housing & ShelterHOUSING JUST…HOME LINE: $7,000 · Housing & ShelterHOME LINERURAL RESOURCES COMMUNITY ACTION: $30,580 · Human ServicesNorthern Maine Development Commission: $15,000 · Community ImprovementTHUNDER VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR: $10,000 · Community ImprovementFLINT HILLS REGIONAL COUNCIL INC: $15,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Other$391,349Education$66,834Housing & Shelter$64,500Human Services$30,580Community Improvement$25,000Public Safety & Disaster$15,000

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 budgetHOUSING JUSTICE CENTER: $57,500 over 5y, 2.5% of budgetAFRICAN CAREER EDUCATION & RESOURCES IN: $50,000 over 5y, 2.0% of budgetRURAL RESOURCES COMMUNITY ACTION: $30,580 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNew American Development Cente: $16,834 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNorthern Maine Development Commission: $15,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetFLINT HILLS REGIONAL COUNCIL INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetTHUNDER VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHOME LINE: $7,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetKOOTASCA COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds AFRICAN CAREER EDUCATION & RESOURCES IN ↗
  • Who funds RURAL RESOURCES COMMUNITY ACTION ↗
  • Who funds New American Development Cente ↗
  • Who funds Northern Maine Development Commission ↗
  • Who funds FLINT HILLS REGIONAL COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds THUNDER VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR ↗
  • Who funds HOME LINE ↗
  • Who funds KOOTASCA COMMUNITY ACTION INC ↗

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.

Otto Bremer TrustMN15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Otto Bremer Trust · Alliance for Metropolitan Stability · Family Housing Fund · The McKnight Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · 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 Minnesota Housing Partnership funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Minnesota Housing Partnership. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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 34 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $103k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Minnesota Housing Partnership’s filings →

    More from the funding graph