Skip to content
Edward Hospital at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Edward Hospital

Edward Hospital follows the mission of Endeavor Health to "help everyone in our communities be their best."

$1.1M
Granted FY2024still arriving
4
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$700k
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 2024.

Health$2.4MEnvironment$700kCommunity Improvement$374kHuman Services$50kPhilanthropy$42kFood & Nutrition$28kYouth Development$20kHousing & Shelter$10kOther$0
02FY2024 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $1,024,640, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,108,619 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $83,979 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 · FY2024

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $36k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $289k
  • $250k+1 grant · $700k
$238,900
Median grant
1
States reached
$705M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Riverwalk Bicentennial Fund$700,000
DuPage Health Coalition$238,900
Greater Joliet Area YMCA$50,000
MCHC Service Corporation$35,740
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 (FY17–23, $58k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 17% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%HESSED HOUSE SHELTER: $10k → 8%Loaves and Fishes: $15k → 7%Loaves and Fishes: $8k → 7%LOAVES AND FISHES COMMUNITY SERVICES: $6k → 7%360 YOUTH SERVICES: $5k → 7%360 YOUTH SERVICES: $5k → 7%360 YOUTH SERVICES: $5k → 7%360 YOUTH SERVICES: $5k → 7%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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.8M · 16 repeat orgs$862k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 15 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
6

Total granted

$2.8M
$76k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+85%

Still filing today

69%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 23% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $786k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyEnvironmentOther
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

  • DH
    DUPAGE HEALTH COALITION
    6× · 2017–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +136%
  • AC
    ADVOCATE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION
    6× · 2017–2023 · $210k · revenue +18%
  • PS
    PLAINFIELD SHOREWOOD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    6× · 2017–2023 · $96k · revenue +56%

Funded once

  • D
    DUPAGEBIZgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +85%
  • AH
    AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2018 · $15k
  • AH
    American Heart Association Incgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $13k · revenue +43%
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
Cook County Chamber
Philanthropy
2
Illinois Business Alliance

The illinois business alliance is a nonprofit, member-driven business league that exists to improve illinois' business climate and promote the common economic interests of its members.

—
3
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce

The chamber is a member association designed to be the leading advocate for the business community of the greater dayton region. its mission is to work shoulder to shoulder with businesses to help them succeed.

—
4
Ohio Chamber of Commerce

As the state's leading business advocate and resource, the ohio chamber of commerce aggressively champions free enterprise, economic competitiveness and growth for the benefit of all ohioans.

—
5
The Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce

The peoria area chamber of commerce is a membership organization of businesses, delivering value to its members by 1) cultivating a thriving business community, 2) presenting the united voice of local business to government, 3) offering…

—
6
Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce

To be a voice for business and a forum for the exchange of ideas and through a variety of chamber programs and services, strengthen the economic vitality of east chicago, hammond, and northwest indiana.

Community Improvement
7
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Industry

The minnesota chamber of commerce proactively leads the business community statewide to: advance pro-business, responsible minnesota public policy that creates jobs and grows the econony; provde member services to address evolving business…

—
8
Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce

The eau claire area chamber of commerce, a not-for-profit business membership organization with steady membership around 1,200 members, is the advocate of business striving to enhance and protect the business environment and quality of…

—
9
Michigan Chamber of Commerce

To promote conditions favorable to job creation and business success in michigan.

—
10
Oak Lawn Chamber of Commerce

To represent and advance its business community striving with constant integrity fairness and cooperation to promote and improve the economic atmosphere business climate and image of Oak Lawn

—
11
Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce

To be a catalyst for economic and community progress within the great lakes bay region.

—
12
Mclean Co Chamber of Commerce

To support and serve our members, the mclean county chamber of commerce strives to promote commerce, advocate pro-business prospectives, collaborate to lead change, and engage in action for results that strengthen the prosperity of the…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Illinois Chamber of Commerce; the most unlike its peers is Riverwalk Bicentennial Fund. 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

20 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. 20 of the 26 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/20
Grantees still filing
13/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DUPAGE HEALTH COALITION: $2,034,933 · HealthDUPAGE HEALTH COALITIONADVOCATE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $209,660 · HealthADVOCATE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION+2 more: $48,240 · HealthRIVERWALK BICENTENNIAL FUND: $700,000 · EnvironmentRIVERWALK BICENTENNIA…PLAINFIELD SHOREWOOD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $95,531 · OtherPLAINFIELD SHORE…ILLINOIS HEALTH AND HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION: $62,826 · OtherILLINOIS HEALTH …NAPERVILLE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $61,668 · OtherNAPERVILLE AREA …DuPage County Health Department: $50,000 · OtherDuPage County He…YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION JOLIET: $50,000 · OtherYOUNG MEN'S CHRI…CHOOSE DUPAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE FOUNDATION: $37,500 · OtherCHOOSE DUPAGE EC…PROACTIVE KIDS FOUNDATION: $32,740 · OtherPROACTIVE KIDS F…JOLIET WILL COUNTY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $32,500 · OtherJOLIET WILL COUN…ILLINOIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $25,455 · OtherWILL COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $22,000 · OtherOswego Chamber of Commerce: $20,000 · Other+3 more: $36,500 · Other+3 moreLOAVES & FISHES COMMUNITY SERVICES: $28,150 · Human Services360 YOUTH SERVICES: $20,000 · Human ServicesPUBLIC ACTION TO DELIVER SHELTER INC D/B/A HESED HOUSE: $10,000 · Human ServicesUNITED WAY OF WILL COUNTY: $29,700 · PhilanthropyTHE DUPAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $12,225 · PhilanthropyDUPAGEBIZ: $25,000 · Community ImprovementOSWEGO AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $7,422 · Community Improvement
Health$2,292,833Environment$700,000Other$526,720Human Services$58,150Philanthropy$41,925Community Improvement$32,422

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDUPAGE HEALTH COALITION: $2,034,933 over 6y, 17% of budgetRIVERWALK BICENTENNIAL FUND: $700,000 over 1y, 97% of budgetADVOCATE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $209,660 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetPLAINFIELD SHOREWOOD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $95,531 over 6y, 5.8% of budgetILLINOIS HEALTH AND HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION: $62,826 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetNAPERVILLE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $61,668 over 4y, 1.9% of budgetYOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION JOLIET: $50,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMCHC CHICAGO HOSPITAL COUNCIL: $35,740 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPROACTIVE KIDS FOUNDATION: $32,740 over 2y, 44% of budgetUNITED WAY OF WILL COUNTY: $29,700 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetLOAVES & FISHES COMMUNITY SERVICES: $28,150 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetILLINOIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $25,455 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetDUPAGEBIZ: $25,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetWILL COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $22,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budget360 YOUTH SERVICES: $20,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetNAPERVILLE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $15,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $12,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DUPAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $12,225 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPUBLIC ACTION TO DELIVER SHELTER INC D/B/A HESED HOUSE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% 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.

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.

Edward-Elmhurst Healt…Amazonsmile Foundation
Edward-Elmhurst HealthcareIL13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Edward-Elmhurst Healthcare · 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 Edward Hospital funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Edward Hospital. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    0get no government money at all
    9report 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 26 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 Edward Hospital’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