Skip to content
The Porter Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Porter Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$106k
Granted FY2025still arriving
24
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$35k
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 2025.

Environment$482kRecreation & Sports$42kPublic Benefit$41kArts & Culture$28kHealth$22kPhilanthropy$20kAnimals$19kEducation$18kOther$0
02FY2025 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k21 grants · $50k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $55k
$2,500
Median grant
6
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK$35,259
MIEIBC$10,000
SOLARDARITY$10,000
Ecology Center$6,850
MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL$6,500
FLOW FOR LOVE OF WATER$5,000
FOOD AND WATER WATCH$4,500
National Wildlife Federation$4,000
Center for Michigan$3,500
DISCOVERY CENTER & PIER$3,000
U OF M SARAH MILLS FUND$2,500
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY$2,500
EMPIRE AREA COMMUNITY CENTER$2,500
COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONS$2,025
Planet Detroit$1,000
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 (FY19–20, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $1k → 21%WE THE PEOPLE OF DETROIT: $1k → 21%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

VT
MN
IL
MI
MA
CT
CA
VA
DC
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.
$576k · 30 repeat orgs$125k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +72% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

30 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

30
21

Total granted

$576k
$108k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+72%
+23%

Still filing today

57%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $17k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentArts & CultureHealthHuman ServicesPublic BenefitAnimalsOther
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

  • EC
    ECOLOGY CENTER
    7× · 2019–2025 · $52k · revenue +136%
  • S
    SOULARDARITY
    4× · 2021–2025 · $35k · revenue +328%
  • ME
    MICHIGAN ENVIROMENTAL COUNCIL
    3× · 2017–2025 · $34k · revenue +145%

Funded once

  • M
    MICAN
    one grant, 2019 · $25k
  • FRESH ENERGY
    2× · 2021–2023 · $15k · revenue -14%
  • EL
    ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST
    one grant, 2021 · $13k · revenue +22%
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
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

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…

Environment
2
Clean Fuels Michigan

To accelerate the transition to clean transportation in michigan. we advocate for the suite of alternative fuels including biofuels, hydrogen, propane, natural gas, and electric vehicles.

Community Improvement
3
Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition

Works to end environmental injustice by empowering communities at the grassroots level.the corporation is organzied exclusively for charitable, religious, educational and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the makeing of…

Environment
4
Michigan Water Environment Association

Be and create stewards for the water environment of michigan. provide high quality education for michigan's water professionals. educate and inform policy makers and the general public. promote scientifically sound environmental practices…

Environment
5
East Michigan Environmental Action Council Inc

To protect and restore land, air, water, and diversity of life through informed personal and public action.

Environment
6
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

The minnesota center for environmental advocacy is a nonprofit organization that uses law, science and research to protect minnesota's environment, its natural resources and the health of its people.

Environment
7
MN350

Mn350 unites minnesotans with the global movement to end the pollution damaging our climate, speed the transition to clean energy, and create a just and healthy future for all.

Environment
8
The Little Forks Conservancy Inc

To permanently protect and improve natural environments in Mid-Michigan by leading and inspiring actions that conserve vital habitats and waterways for the benefit of our entire community.

Environment
9
West Michigan Environmental Action Council Educational Foundation

Wmeac's mission is to "inform and engage an inclusive community which acts together to protect natural resources and create a climate resilient west michigan."

—
10
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
11
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
12
Heart of the Lakes Ctr for Land Cons

Heart of the Lakes provides technical assistance, leadership training, and strategic communication tools that help organizations thrive - from grassroots land conservancies to larger regional conservation groups. Programs such as peer…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Alliance for the Great Lakes; the most unlike its peers is National Wildlife Federation. 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

30 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 30 of the 61 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)
12
Early backer (in before they grew)
30/30
Grantees still filing
18/30
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Michigan Climate Action Network: $144,268 · EnvironmentMichigan Climate Action NetworkECOLOGY CENTER: $52,050 · EnvironmentECOLOGY CENTERSOULARDARITY: $35,000 · EnvironmentSOULARDARITYMICHIGAN ENVIROMENTAL COUNCIL: $34,000 · EnvironmentMICHIGAN ENVIROMENTAL COUNCILFOR LOVE OF WATER: $30,000 · EnvironmentFOR LOVE OF WATERFRESH ENERGY: $15,000 · EnvironmentENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $12,500 · Environment+6 more: $16,500 · EnvironmentPlanet Detroit: $46,298 · OtherPlanet DetroitTRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC: $25,000 · OtherTRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTAT…MICAN: $25,000 · OtherMICANMIEBC: $22,000 · OtherMIEBCENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY: $13,500 · OtherENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICYGlen Lake Community Library: $12,500 · OtherMIEIBC: $10,000 · OtherTOWN OF DEDHAM: $10,000 · OtherKEITH CENTER FOR RACE AND EQUITY: $10,000 · OtherDETROITERS WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: $13,105 · OtherDETROITERS WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL J…+28 more: $58,299 · Other+28 moreDISCOVERY CENTER GREAT LAKES: $15,500 · Arts & CultureTHE HEIDELBERG PROJECT: $14,250 · Arts & CultureDEDHAM SCHOOL OF MUSIC INCORPORATED: $6,000 · Arts & CultureMOTHER BROOK ARTS AND COMMUNITY CENTER: $3,000 · Arts & CultureEMPIRE AREA COMMUNITY CENTER: $2,500 · Arts & CultureTHE CENTER FOR MICHIGAN: $31,000 · Public BenefitEcoWorks: $20,000 · Housing & ShelterANN ARBOR AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyCOUNCIL OF MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONS: $9,625 · PhilanthropyNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $18,500 · Animals
Environment$339,318Other$245,702Arts & Culture$41,250Public Benefit$31,000Housing & Shelter$20,000Philanthropy$19,625Animals$18,500

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 budgetMichigan Climate Action Network: $144,268 over 5y, 7.8% of budgetECOLOGY CENTER: $52,050 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetSOULARDARITY: $35,000 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetMICHIGAN ENVIROMENTAL COUNCIL: $34,000 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR MICHIGAN: $31,000 over 8y, 0.3% of budgetFOR LOVE OF WATER: $30,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetTRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC: $25,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetEcoWorks: $20,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetNATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION: $18,500 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetDISCOVERY CENTER GREAT LAKES: $15,500 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetFRESH ENERGY: $15,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetTHE HEIDELBERG PROJECT: $14,250 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetDETROITERS WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: $13,105 over 4y, 1.4% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST: $12,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetANN ARBOR AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOUNCIL OF MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONS: $9,625 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetDEDHAM SCHOOL OF MUSIC INCORPORATED: $6,000 over 3y, 1.9% of budgetFOOD & WATER WATCH: $4,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCAURA FUTURES INC: $3,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetMOTHER BROOK ARTS AND COMMUNITY CENTER: $3,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetMAKE FOOD NOT WASTE: $2,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetEMPIRE AREA COMMUNITY CENTER: $2,500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetWe the People of Detroit: $2,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetMichigan Clinicians for Climate Action: $1,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetMIDWEST BUILDING DECARBONIZATION COALITION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSUNRISE MOVEMENT EDUCATION FUND: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES: $263 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 Michigan Climate Action Network ↗
  • Who funds ECOLOGY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds SOULARDARITY ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN ENVIROMENTAL COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds THE CENTER FOR MICHIGAN ↗
  • Who funds FOR LOVE OF WATER ↗
  • Who funds TRAVERSE AREA RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION TRAILS INC ↗
  • Who funds EcoWorks ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
  • Who funds DISCOVERY CENTER GREAT LAKES ↗
  • Who funds FRESH ENERGY ↗
  • Who funds THE HEIDELBERG PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds DETROITERS WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ↗
  • Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST ↗
  • Who funds MICHIGAN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
  • Who funds ANN ARBOR AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds COUNCIL OF MICHIGAN FOUNDATIONS ↗
  • Who funds DEDHAM SCHOOL OF MUSIC INCORPORATED ↗
  • Who funds FOOD & WATER WATCH ↗
  • Who funds CAURA FUTURES INC ↗
  • Who funds MOTHER BROOK ARTS AND COMMUNITY CENTER ↗
  • Who funds MAKE FOOD NOT WASTE ↗
  • Who funds EMPIRE AREA COMMUNITY CENTER ↗

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.

Charles Stewart Mott …The Fred & Barbara Er…United States Energy …Community Foundation …Natural Resources Def…The Kresge FoundationMichigan Enviromental…Americana FoundationThe Energy FoundationThe Ralph C Wilson Jr…The Minneapolis Found…WK Kellogg Foundation
Charles Stewart Mott FoundationMI26.8× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation · The Fred & Barbara Erb Family Foundation · United States Energy Foundation · Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · The Kresge Foundation · Michigan Enviromental Council · Americana Foundation · The Energy Foundation · The Ralph C Wilson Jr Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · WK Kellogg 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 The Porter Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Porter Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%1%3%6%10%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
    2get 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 61 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-PF 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 Porter Family’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