Skip to content
James & Almeda Vander Waals Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

James & Almeda Vander Waals Foundation

Its FY2020 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$843k
Granted FY2020
2
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$833k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2020.

Philanthropy$833kHealth$43kEducation$30kArts & Culture$19kEnvironment$15kFood & Nutrition$10kHousing & Shelter$6kReligion$4kOther$0
02FY2020 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $250k+1 grant · $833k
$832,938
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GRAND RAPIDS FOUNDATION$832,938
FEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN$10,000
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 (FY17–19, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%SANTA CLAUS GIRLS OF KENT COUNTY: $500 → 11%Degage Ministries: $1k → 11%Degage Ministries: $1k → 11%Degage Ministries: $500 → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

11%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$109k · 10 repeat orgs$856k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +69% since the first grant, against +33% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2020, 10 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
7

Total granted

$109k
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+69%
+33%

Still filing today

50%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $843k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterEnvironmentHealthOther
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

  • MT
    MEL TROTTER MINISTRIES
    3× · 2017–2019 · $3k · revenue +141%
  • DM
    DEGAGE MINISTRIES
    3× · 2017–2019 · $3k · revenue +74%
  • HF
    HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
    2× · 2018–2019 · $2k · revenue +69%

Funded once

  • FM
    FREDERIK MEIJER GARDENS
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
  • CH
    COREWELL HEALTH FOUNDATION WEST MICHIGAN
    one grant, 2019 · $4k
  • DB
    DA BLODGETT - ST JOHN'S
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue -30%
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
West Michigan Christian Foundation

None

Religion
2
Movement West Michigan

Uniting christian faith leaders to serve with humility and love for the flourishing of all in our community.

Religion
3
Housing Services of Mid Michigan

To assist people with low or moderate income to obtain safe and affordable housing

Housing & Shelter
4
Gw Homeless Services of Northern Michigan Inc

The mission of gw homeless services of northern michigan, inc is to provide safe, supportive shelter to individuals experiencing homelessness.the 2023 990 was for 10/1-12/31/23 due to an accounting period change.

Human Services
5
Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County

Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County D/B/A Catholic Charities Washtenaw County provides diverse, holistic social services including adoption and pregnancy counseling, food and basic needs assistance, domestic and child abuse…

—
6
Michigan Christian Home

The michigan christian home dba beacon hill at eastgate, a not-for-profit corporation, provides housing and health services in a christian environment for older adults, thus enabling them to meet their ongoing physical, social and…

—
7
Area Agency On Aging of Western Michigan Inc

Through internal expertise, external partnerships, and advocacy, the area agency on aging of western michigan provides older adults, adults with disabilities, and their caregivers equitable access to services that promote independence and…

Human Services
8
Habitat for Humanity - Grand Traverse Region

Habitat for humanity - grand traverse region is an ecumenical christian housing ministry. the organization works in partnership with people to improve the conditions in which they live by providing affordable housing. habitat challenges…

—
9
Rescue Ministries of Mid-Michigan

Expressing God's love by reaching out to the hurting and homeless of the Great Lakes Bay Region by providing shelter and care, proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, and establishing Christian disciples among disadvantaged people.

Housing & Shelter
10
Habitat for Humanity of Lapeer - Tuscola

To eliminate sub-standard housing and homelessness from lapeer county.

—
11
Family Promise of Greater Des Moines

To provide shelter and services to families experiencing homelessness

—
12
Mid Michigan Community Action Agency Inc

Mid michigan community action guides local residents on the path to self-sufficiency through empowerment, education and community enrichment.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Degage Ministries; the most unlike its peers is Habitat for Humanity. 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

10 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. 10 of the 19 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GRAND RAPIDS FOUNDATION: $832,938 · OtherGRAND RAPIDS FOUNDATIONMary Free Bed Rehabilitation: $34,000 · Other+11 more: $77,500 · Other+11 moreWEST MICHIGAN HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY INC DBA FREDERIK MEIJER GARDENS: $10,000 · EnvironmentCOREWELL HEALTH FOUNDATION WEST MICHIGAN: $4,000 · HealthDEGAGE MINISTRIES: $2,500 · Human ServicesSANTA CLAUS GIRLS OF KENT COUNTY: $500 · Human ServicesHABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $2,000 · Housing & ShelterFAMILY PROMISE OF GRAND RAPIDS: $1,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$944,438Environment$10,000Health$4,000Human Services$3,000Housing & Shelter$3,000

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 budgetWEST MICHIGAN HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY INC DBA FREDERIK MEIJER GARDENS: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFEEDING AMERICA WEST MICHIGAN: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMEL TROTTER MINISTRIES: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDEGAGE MINISTRIES: $2,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $2,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST MICHIGAN: $1,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetDA BLODGETT - ST JOHN'S: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY PROMISE OF GRAND RAPIDS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSANTA CLAUS GIRLS OF KENT COUNTY: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Heart of West Michiga…Grand Rapids Communit…The Meijer FoundationPeter C & Emajean Coo…Frey FoundationGe Aerospace Foundati…The Sebastian Foundat…Cdv5 FoundationCorewell Health Group…Douglas & Maria Devos…Dick and Betsy Devos …Raymond James Charita…
Heart of West Michigan United WayMI17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Heart of West Michigan United Way · Grand Rapids Community Foundation · The Meijer Foundation · Peter C & Emajean Cook Foundation · Frey Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · The Sebastian Foundation · Cdv5 Foundation · Corewell Health Group Return · Douglas & Maria Devos Foundation · Dick and Betsy Devos Family Foundation · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund

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 James & Almeda Vander Waals Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from James & Almeda Vander Waals Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to James & Almeda Vander Waals Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to James & Almeda Vander Waals Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 19 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on James & Almeda Vander Waals’ 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