· Private foundation
The Mary C Currie Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k6 grants · $30k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $59k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CITY OF MIDLAND | $39,000 |
| CITY OF AUBURN | $20,000 |
| HOME TO STAY | $5,000 |
| AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLIANCE | $5,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $5,000 |
| CLEVELAND MANOR | $5,000 |
| THE ARC OF MIDLAND | $5,000 |
| GIRL SCOUTS HEART OF MICHIGAN | $5,000 |
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 (FY18–24, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 24% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 11% of The Mary C Currie 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, 99% of the giving stays in MI; read by stated purpose it is 89% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
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.
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.
9 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 5 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, 72% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
- COCITY OF MIDLAND8× · 2017–2024 · $290k
- COCITY OF AUBURN4× · 2021–2024 · $45k
- MPMEMORIAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH3× · 2017–2019 · $25k
Funded once
- WMWEST MIDLAND FAMILY CENTERgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +193%
- FCFamily & Children's Services of Mid-Michigan Incone grant, 2023 · $10k · revenue +0%
- HSHumane Society of Midland Countygraduatedone grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +56%
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.
To protect and nurture companion animals and enrich the lives of people who love them.
To provide personal and compassionate support to cancer patients and their caregivers in our community.
To provide high quality community-oriented, patient-centered health services for all.
Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…
To provide high quality, individualized care and community inclusion for the people we serve so they can have full and happy lives.
Mid michigan community action guides local residents on the path to self-sufficiency through empowerment, education and community enrichment.
To provide comprehensive outpatient mental health services to over 5400 individuals and their families in a consumer driven person centered delivery system. Approximately 15% of our staff members are our clients who are involved in a…
To provide facilities for nonprofit organizations to enjoy the experience of nature in michigan, promote ourdoor education, and to offer camping enjoyment to the people of midland county.
To assist people with low or moderate income to obtain safe and affordable housing
Hospice provides care from the heart to fulfill the unique needs of patients and families.
Assisting the community mental health boards of michigan in developing methods for mental health planning, care and treatment.
To meet the growing housing needs of people with special needs throughout Midland County - we want to offer them stability and affordability and help them become integrated into the community.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Council On Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault and the most unlike its peers is Wildlife Recovery Association. 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 36 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 MIDLAND AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds WEST MIDLAND FAMILY CENTER ↗
- Who funds Family & Children's Services of Mid-Michigan Inc ↗
- Who funds Humane Society of Midland County ↗
- Who funds WILDLIFE RECOVERY ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Eagle Village Inc ↗
- Who funds CHIPPEWA NATURE CENTER ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & SEXUAL ASSAULT ↗
- Who funds TONI & TRISH HOUSE FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL ↗
- Who funds SLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE INC ↗
- Who funds CLEVELAND MANOR INC ↗
- Who funds GIRL SCOUTS HEART OF MICHIGAN ↗
- Who funds GREATER MIDLAND COMMUNITY CTRS INC ↗
- Who funds The Arc of Midland ↗
- Who funds DAHLIA HILL SOCIETY OF MIDLAND ↗
- Who funds MIDLAND VOLUNTEERS FOR RECYCLING ↗
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: Midland Area Community Foundation · The Charles J Strosacker Foundation · The Herbert H & Grace a Dow Foundation · Rollin M Gerstacker Foundation · Alden and Vada Dow Fund · The Patricia and David Kepler Foundation · Consumers Energy Foundation · Harry a and Margaret D Towsley Foundation · Barstow Foundation · The Doan Family Foundation · Laura Ludington Hollenbeck Foundation · United Way of Midland County
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 Mary C Currie 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.
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.