· Private foundation
Institute for Mental Health & Wellness
AS EXPRESSIONS OF GOD'S HEALING LOVE, WITNESSED THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF JESUS, WE ARE STEADFAST IN SERVING ALL, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE POOR AND VULNERABLE.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PROVIDENCE ALASKA FOUNDATION | $1,200,000 |
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 (FY18–19, $1.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 81% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 14% of Institute for Mental Health & Wellness’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, 68% of the giving stays in WA; read by stated purpose it is 55% — 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.
19 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2022, 18 since wound down.
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 FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- PHPROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM - SO CALIFORNIA5× · 2017–2021 · $5.0M · revenue +20%
- SJST JOSEPH HEALTH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC3× · 2019–2021 · $4.3M · revenue +15%
- PAPROVIDENCE ALASKA FOUNDATION3× · 2018–2022 · $1.4M · revenue +48%
Funded once
- AHALIADOS HEALTHgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $799k · revenue +169%
- QOQUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTERone grant, 2018 · $682k
THE CAMBODIAN FAMILYgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $510k · revenue +85% · 41% of their budget
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.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
Our mission is to provide respectful, high-quality, patient-focused healthcare to each person and to the communities we serve. pacmed welcomes patients from the well insured to those who cannot afford healthcare.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
As expressions of god's healing love, witnessed through the ministry of jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Providence Saint John's Health Center and the most unlike its peers is Fannie E Rippel Foundation. 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.
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 30 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 24% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
47 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. 47 of the 50 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 ST JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM - SO CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds ST JOSEPH HEALTH NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LLC ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE ALASKA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER ↗
- Who funds Inst for People Place Possibility ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ALIADOS HEALTH ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE MEDICAL INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds TRUST FOR AMERICAS HEALTH ↗
- Who funds ST MARY MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds MIND OC ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES FOUNDATION SAN FERNANDO & SANTA CLARITA VALLEYS SA ↗
- Who funds THE CAMBODIAN FAMILY ↗
- Who funds COMMITTEE ON THE SHELTERLESS ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR HEALTHCARE IMPROVEMENT ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH HEALTH ↗
- Who funds UNITED STATES OF CARE CAMPAIGN ↗
- Who funds BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE MEDICAL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL OF ORANGE ↗
- Who funds PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES - WASHINGTON ↗
- Who funds Inseparable Inc ↗
- Who funds Prevention Institute ↗
- Who funds Covenant Health ↗
- Who funds NORCAL OUTREACH PROJECT ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY INC ↗
- Who funds NONPROFIT FINANCE FUND ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC ↗
- Who funds SWEDISH HEALTH SERVICES ↗
- Who funds The Research Foundation for The State University of New York ↗
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: The California Endowment · California Physicians' Service Fdn Dba Blue Shield of California Fdn · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · The Kresge Foundation · The Commonwealth Fund · California Community Foundation · The California Wellness Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · WK Kellogg Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation
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 Institute for Mental Health & Wellness 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.
- Enterprise Community Partners Inc — 22% of income from government
- National Association of Community Health Centers Inc — 12% of income from government
- Institute for Healthcare Improvement — 0% of income from government
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.