Skip to content
Corewell Health Foundation West Michigan at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Corewell Health Foundation West Michigan

Improve health, instill humanity and inspire hope.

$24M
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$23M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $11k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $607k
  • $250k+3 grants · $24M
$213,017
Median grant
1
States reached
$352M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS$22,721,432
SPECTRUM HEALTH UNITED$638,803
PENNOCK HOSPITAL$267,951
REED CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION$213,017
ZEELAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL$134,134
NEWAYGO COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION$133,268
MECOSTA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER$126,138
MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER OF WEST MICHIGAN$11,109
02The need
02

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 (FY24–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS: $22.7M → 11%SPECTRUM HEALTH UNITED: $639k → 11%PENNOCK HOSPITAL: $268k → 11%REED CITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION: $213k → 11%ZEELAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: $134k → 11%NEWAYGO COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION: $133k → 11%MECOSTA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER: $126k → 11%MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER OF WEST MICHIGAN: $11k → 11%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 field
03the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2024–2024.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2024 to 2024, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 8 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
0/0
Grantees still filing
0/0
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COREWELL HEALTH: $22,721,432 · OtherCOREWELL HEALTH+7 more: $1,524,420 · Other+7 more
Other$24,245,852

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their 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.

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.

Michigan Health & Hos…Michigan Center for R…
Michigan Health & Hospital Association Dba MhaMI22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Michigan Health & Hospital Association Dba Mha · Michigan Center for Rural Health

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.

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 8 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Corewell Health Foundation West Michigan’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