How much did The Skillman Foundation grant in FY2024?

The Skillman Foundation reported 406 itemized grants totaling $17,340,860, out of $17,815,860 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2024 IRS filing.

Where is The Skillman Foundation based?

The Skillman Foundation is based in Detroit, MI.

The Skillman Foundation

Foundation Dossiers Also receives grants — funding profile →

Detroit, MI · Private foundation

The Skillman Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$18M

Granted FY2024still arriving

406

Grants FY2024still arriving

States reached

$500k

Largest

01What you fund

0191% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2020–2024.

Education$19MCommunity Improvement$11MHuman Services$8.9MYouth Development$6.8MPhilanthropy$6.7MArts & Culture$4.8MEmployment$3.8MHealth$3.7MOther$0

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

Each cell is that theme’s share of the year’s giving · ⚡ ringed cells mark a flagged jump.

03FY2024 · 406 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 406 grants below total $17,340,860 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $17,815,860 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $475,000 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.

Grant-size mix · FY2020–FY2024

FY20

47%

46%

$17.0M

FY21

60%

33%

$18.4M

FY22

11%

57%

31%

$22.4M

FY23

66%

27%

$23.8M

FY24

12%

54%

30%

$17.8M

Under $10k$10k–50k$50k–250k$250k+

In FY2020, 46% of your dollars went out in $250k+ checks; by FY2024 that was 30%. Each year’s bar is its own 100%, so the bands show the mix, not the total.

$10,000

Median grant

States reached

$602M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
DETROIT CHILDREN'S FUND	$500,000
MICHIGAN'S THANKSGIVING PARADE	$500,000
WARREN CONNER DEVELOPMENT COALITION INC DBA EASTSIDE COMMUNITY NETWORK	$500,000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVOCATES OF DETROIT	$405,000
ALLIED MEDIA PROJECTS INC	$375,000
BLACK MALE EDUCATORS ALLIANCE	$375,000
TEACH FOR AMERICA INC	$360,000
MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF UNITED WAYS	$300,000
THE CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION	$300,000
METRO SOLUTIONS INC	$278,000
METRO SOLUTIONS INC	$275,000
BFDI EDUCATIONAL SERVICES INC	$250,000
DETROIT 9090	$250,000
DETROIT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES	$250,000
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	$250,000

02The need

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 24%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 87% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

Which US states your grants reach

The hardship those neighborhoods carry, beyond income:

Adults without health insurance:reaches 36.7% in some neighborhoods (typically 6.4%)(CDC, modeled)
Eviction pressure:up to 141.4 filings per 100 renter households in the hardest-hit areas(Eviction Lab, 2018)
Food access:134 of 1519 neighborhoods are USDA-designated food deserts(USDA, 2019)

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.

Where the work is directed

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

About 10% of The Skillman Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 84% of the giving stays in MI; read by stated purpose it is 90% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

The Skillman Foundationlessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge

The orgs you fund vs the ones you don’t

You skew toward the sturdier end of a fragile field.

The organisations you back are larger and somewhat healthier than comparable nonprofits nearby that you don't fund — but the edge is real, not dramatic: 83% of those you fund still carry a fragility flag, against 80% of the unfunded. In a sector where most run thin, you lean toward resilience rather than backing a financially secure elite.

The kind of organization you back

77% of the organizations you back live mainly on donations, against 47% of the comparable nonprofits nearby you don’t fund. The ones you pick show fewer of the warning signs below than the field you don’t fund.

What they work on

Community Improvement13% vs 4%
Arts & Culture13% vs 7%
Youth Development9% vs 3%

The nearby nonprofits you don’t fund are concentrated in Religion, Health, Human Services.

How they hold up

Lean on a single income source61% vs 51%

you fund (252) you don’t (4217)· share of each group

You fund (210)You don’t (2949)

Median size (revenue)$2.5M$946k

Operating margin5%5%

Financially fragile83%80%

Comparison vs unfunded, size/cause-matched nonprofits in your county. Association, not proof — the funder enables, it does not solely cause.

repeat funding

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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$91M · 238 repeat orgs$7.0M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +30% since the first grant, against +10% for the ones you funded once.

238 repeat relationships — 178 still active in FY2024, 60 since wound down; 134 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

Of your 244 multi-year relationships, 54 repeat the same amount every year (15% of multi-year dollars), the pattern of a standing commitment. The rest vary year to year. Grant terms aren’t stated in the filing; this is inferred from the payment pattern.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

238

188

Total granted

$91M

$4.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+30%

+10%

Still filing today

85%

69%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.7M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentHealthOther

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

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION
5× · 2020–2024 · $3.6M · revenue +73%
UNITED WAY FOR SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
5× · 2020–2024 · $2.5M · revenue +42%
MS
METRO SOLUTIONS INC
5× · 2020–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +11%

Funded once

DETROIT RIVERFRONT CONSERVANCY INC
one grant, 2023 · $500k · revenue -15%
CE
Community Education Commission
one grant, 2020 · $350k · revenue -22%
MICHIGAN PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTEgraduated
one grant, 2020 · $350k · revenue +49%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

Activities, outputs, outcomes

Most can say what their work is for. Few can show it changed. Click an area to step through it.

Of 46 organizations, 4 show a change. The rest report what they did, or only what they hope it’s for.

Click an area to read it, and step through its organizations.

Read from 46 of the 183 organizations you fund across these 5 areas— those you fund most heavily — in their own program-service reporting. Achievements are the organizations’ own.

case studies

Two relationships, up close

One you funded repeatedly and one you funded once, each traced through its own filings and the public record.

CENTER FOR SUCCESS NETWORK

Conviction

An early bet that kept compounding

Skillman backed Center for Success Network across five consecutive cycles from 2020 to 2024, committing $861,050 at a peak of 37% of the organization's budget — and alongside that sustained partnership, revenue grew 113% since the first grant. In 2024 alone, the Detroit-based nonprofit delivered over 25,000 hours of one-on-one literacy mentoring through more than 300 trained volunteers, certified teachers, and AmeriCorps members, with 84% of students demonstrating measurable reading growth and students gaining an average of four independent and four instructional reading levels in a single program year.

5× · 2020–2024

Funded

$861k

You committed

37%

Peak share of budget

+113%

Their revenue since

CITIZENDETROIT ACTION GROUP

Funded once

Catalytic moment; financial base still narrow

Skillman made a single $150,000 grant to CitizenDetroit Action Group in 2020 — support that represented as much as 95% of the organization's peak budget at the time — as the Detroit civic-engagement nonprofit pivoted quickly to phone-based and virtual programming when COVID-19 shut down in-person events, reaching an average of 40 residents per event and providing unbiased candidate information ahead of both 2020 elections. Revenue has not grown since that first grant and recent filings are unavailable, leaving the organization's current financial footing unclear even as its civic mission remains active.

once (2020)

Funded

$150k

You committed

95%

Peak share of budget

-58%

Their revenue since

Trajectories are each organization’s own subsequent IRS filings; milestones are from the public record, linked to source. Revenue is the organization’s whole income from every source, not a return on these grants: we date what happened after a grant, and do not claim the grant caused it.

04Your field

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.

Business Leaders for Michigan

Business leaders for michigan is a nonprofit, nonpartisan statewide organization driven by ceos from the state's leading employers, all working toward a shared goal: making michigan a top 10 state for jobs, talent and a thriving economy.…

—

Detroit Economic Growth Corporation

Promotion of activities to spur economic growth and revitalization in the city of detroit

—

Diploma Equity Project

The organization works with k-12, higher education and other community partners to design and implement programs to improve rates of college persistence and completion.

Education

Endeavor Detroit

Endeavor Detroit is leading the high-impact entrepreneurship movement in Michigan and the wider Great Lakes region, catalyzing long-term economic growth by selecting, mentoring, and supporting the best high-impact entrepreneurs in the…

Community Improvement

Michigan Enviromental Council

Informing and educating the public and decision makers about environmental issues.

Environment

Detroit Jews for Justice

Djj advances racial and economic justice by developing metro detroit jews as community organizers who fight for transformative policy change in deep partnership with neighbors

Civil Rights

Detroit Food Policy Council

The organization was founded by a group of concerned citizens, working in cooperation with the detroit city council, to shape food policy and to work for a more localized, more just, and environmentally friendly food system. the…

Food & Nutrition

The Greening of Detroit

The greening of detroit's mission is the sustainable growth of a healthy urban community through trees, green spaces, healthy living, education, training and job opportunities.

Environment

The Youth Connection Inc

The Youth Connection is committed to connecting all youth and their families in metro Detroit to a brighter future by providing quality programs and supportive services.

Youth Development

Detroit Black Community Food Sovereignty Network

DBCFSN works to build self-reliance and food security in Detroits black community by influencing public policy promoting urban agriculture, promoting healthy eating and encouraging youth to pursue careers in food related fields.

Food & Nutrition

Michigan Advocacy Program

To advance the safety, independence, and economic stability of those most affected by poverty, racism, and other structurally oppressive systems by increasing access to justice and working for systemic solutions.

Crime & Legal

Progress Michigan Education Inc

Progress Michigan Education is a non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)3 organization that promotes solutions for michigan through independent research, public education and the use of new media and internet outreach campaigns.

Public Benefit

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grantmakers for Education and the most unlike its peers is Sugar Honey Iced Tea. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 20 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 12% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%8/511

the rest of the field

12%

6,504/53,345

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

06the grantee network

447 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. 447 of the 573 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

438/447

Grantees still filing

261/447

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Education$18,414,515Other$33,727,449Community Improvement$12,488,550Human Services$9,643,016Philanthropy$9,590,249Youth Development$6,724,569Arts & Culture$5,351,660

Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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.

19 internal · 0 shared anchors

Your portfolio is already a network

Wayne State University and Michigan Central have established a first-of-its-kind partnership to elevate talent, resources and innovation. It’s one of 19 direct ties among 34 of your grantees.

Ties are read from news and organization websites, so they’re directional, not exhaustive; each links to its source.

Grantees connected

Grantee↔grantee ties

Shared anchors (2+ grantees)

External links

Tap any organization to trace its collaborations — shared anchors pull toward the center

min. connectionstheme20 shown · 9 ties

grantee you fund external partner named by both stated inferred

Tap any organization in the graph to trace its collaborations — or start with the strongest ties below.

Strongest grantee↔grantee ties

↔
explicit Joint program
↔
explicit Coalition
↔
explicit Joint program
↔
explicit Joint program
↔
explicit Joint program

Anchors several grantees share

No anchor is shared by multiple grantees yet.

Joint program 54Affiliation 12Coalition 9Funding 8

Partnerships are LLM-extracted from news and organisation websites, not from tax filings — directional, not exhaustive. Each edge links to its source; corroborated edges were named independently by both organisations.

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.

United Way for Southeastern MichiganMI168.3× affinity122 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way for Southeastern Michigan · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Dte Energy Foundation · The Kresge Foundation · The Ralph C Wilson Jr Foundation · McGregor Fund · Hudson-Webber Foundation · Ford Philanthropy · The Fred & Barbara Erb Family Foundation · Max M & Marjorie S Fisher Foundation Inc · Wayne-Metropolitan Community Action Agency Inc · Wayne State University Research and Technology Park in the City of Detroit

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 The Skillman Foundation 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

9get no government money at all

53report 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

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.

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 camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines