Skip to content

· Community foundation

Sanilac County Community Foundation

The s.c.c.f.'s primary exempt purpose is to support and promote educational, scientific,literary, cultural and charitable purpose, primarily in and for the residents of sanilac county.

$779k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$352k
Largest
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$361kPhilanthropy$67kEducation$66kArts & Culture$29kCrime & Legal$28kAnimals$22kRecreation & Sports$21kFood & Nutrition$19kOther$0
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $470,333, the rows itemized in this filing. The $779,465 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $309,132 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $119k
  • $250k+1 grant · $352k
$19,455
Median grant
1
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TCHP$351,540
Individual grant recipient$31,432
SANDUSKY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS$22,306
MARLETTE HISTORICAL SOCIETY$19,455
CAMP CAVELL$12,000
CROS-LEX PROJECT BLESSING$12,000
HOLY FAMILY PARISH$11,600
SAVE COUNCIL$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%CASS CITY PROMISE FUNDS: $20k → 12%ST CLAIR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $15k → 13%DECKERVILLE ED FOUNDATION: $7k → 14%FOOD BANK OF EASTERN MI: $13k → 16%CASS CITY PROMISE FUNDS: $9k → 12%DECKERVILLE ED FOUNDATION: $6k → 14%DECKERVILLE ED FOUNDATION: $6k → 14%CITY OF MARLETTE: $139k → 14%CITY OF MARLETTE: $31k → 14%MARLETTE HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $19k → 14%BRETHEN LUTHERAN SCHOOL: $15k → 14%CAMP CAVELL: $12k → 14%CROS-LEX PROJECT BLESSING: $12k → 14%MOORE PUBLIC LIBRARY: $10k → 14%CAMP CAVELL: $8k → 14%CAMP CAVELL: $6k → 14%CPS HIGH SCHOOL: $9k → 14%PORT SANILAC PARKS & REC: $7k → 14%PORT SANILAC BLUES FESTIVAL: $7k → 14%PORT SANILAC BLUES FESTIVAL: $7k → 14%CROSWELL FOOD TRUCK: $6k → 14%TCHP: $352k → 14%TCHP: $256k → 14%TCHP: $95k → 14%SANDUSKY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: $22k → 14%SANILAC COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE: $20k → 14%GROW SANILAC: $18k → 14%HOLY FAMILY PARISH: $12k → 14%SANILAC COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $11k → 14%MEXICO ROTARY CHARITIES: $10k → 14%MCKENZIE HEALTH SYSTEM: $10k → 14%SAVE COUNCIL: $10k → 14%MEXICO ROTARY CHARITIES: $10k → 14%MEXICO ROTARY CHARITIES: $10k → 14%SANILAC RESCUE MISSION: $9k → 14%SANDUSKY POLICE DEPARTMENT: $9k → 14%SANILAC COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE: $8k → 14%KALAMAZOO ROTARY CHARITIES: $8k → 14%SEA THE WORLD SCUBA CENTER: $7k → 14%CITY OF SANDUSKY: $6k → 14%SAVE HOMELESS GRANT: $6k → 14%SANILAC COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $22k → 14%SANILAC COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $5k → 14%CPS HIGH SCHOOL: $12k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 10 repeat orgs$234k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +86% since the first grant, against +37% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
15

Total granted

$1.1M
$159k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+86%
+37%

Still filing today

20%
27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 84% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsCommunity ImprovementRecreation & SportsFood & NutritionHealthOther
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

  • T
    TCHP
    3× · 2023–2025 · $703k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    2× · 2024–2025 · $171k
  • MR
    MEXICO ROTARY CHARITIES
    3× · 2021–2023 · $30k

Funded once

  • SC
    SANILAC COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY
    one grant, 2023 · $22k · revenue -39%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $18k
  • SC
    ST CLAIR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2022 · $15k
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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 30 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)
6/6
Grantees still filing
3/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TCHP: $703,037 · OtherTCHPIndividual grant recipient: $170,668 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+23 more: $331,128 · Other+23 moreCAMP CAVELL CONSERVANCY: $26,050 · Recreation & SportsSANILAC COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $21,959 · AnimalsST CLAIR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $15,000 · Community ImprovementFood Bank of Eastern Michigan: $13,236 · Food & NutritionMCKENZIE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MCKENZIE HEALTH SYSTEM: $10,000 · Health
Other$1,204,833Recreation & Sports$26,050Animals$21,959Community Improvement$15,000Food & Nutrition$13,236Health$10,000

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 budgetCAMP CAVELL CONSERVANCY: $26,050 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetSANILAC COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $21,959 over 1y, 11% of budgetSANILAC COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $16,440 over 2y, 9.3% of budgetFood Bank of Eastern Michigan: $13,236 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMCKENZIE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MCKENZIE HEALTH SYSTEM: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 CAMP CAVELL CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds SANILAC COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds SANILAC COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds ST CLAIR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds Food Bank of Eastern Michigan ↗
  • Who funds MCKENZIE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MCKENZIE HEALTH SYSTEM ↗

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.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA2.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Sanilac County Community Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Sanilac County Community Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%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
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 30 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Sanilac County’s filings →

    More from the funding graph