How much did NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE grant in FY2024?

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE reported 22 grants totaling $536,668 in its FY2024 IRS filing.

Where is NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE based?

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE is based in DC.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE

Foundation Dossiers Also receives grants — funding profile →

· Public charity

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE

The foundation's purpose is to conduct research, hold educational forums & discussion groups and distribute educational materials to the public on effective and innovative practices in health care management in an effort to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of health care in the united states.

$537k

Granted FY2024

Grants

Communities

$37k

Largest

01What you fund

0163% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.

Education$2.3MHealth$583kCommunity Improvement$304kArts & Culture$165kPublic Benefit$150kHuman Services$139kScience & Tech$89kInternational$55kOther$2.2M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

—

2019

—

2020

trusteesgeorge masonexcellenceknowledgepatientundergraduate graduate

2021

advancegeorge mason

2022

trustees univeristyuniveristy educationfreoppmedicalpatientregents

2023

excellencepatientgraduate professionaleducation broadbroad arrayarray academicacademic domains

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$24,424

Median grant

States reached

$11M

Total assets

Largest grants

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY$37,168
BROWN UNIVERSITY$36,317
DUKE UNIVERSITY$35,684
HARVARD UNIVERSITY$33,688
BROWN UNIVERSITY$33,150
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY$32,532
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$32,500
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH AT GALVESTON$32,073
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER$30,529
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION$29,250
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER$24,424
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA$19,531
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY$19,221
MASS GENERAL HOSPITAL$18,348
FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (FREOPP)$17,640

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $139k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16% — the area typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$4.3M · 45 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +37% since the first grant, against +17% for the ones you funded once.

45 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 30 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$4.3M

$1.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%

+17%

Still filing today

64%

45%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $116k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EducationHealthArts & CultureScience & TechCommunity ImprovementPublic BenefitOther

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

PRESIDENTS & FELLOWS OF HARVARD
7× · 2018–2024 · $439k · revenue +5%
BU
BROWN UNIVERSITY
3× · 2019–2024 · $159k · revenue +19%
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA TRUSTEES OF
5× · 2018–2023 · $157k · revenue +37%

Funded once

YALE UNIVERSITY
2× · 2018–2019 · $89k · revenue +24%
UO
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS
one grant, 2019 · $68k
VC
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY
2× · 2018–2019 · $59k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education

Washington University

The washington university is a co-educational, nondenominational university with a long and distinguished history of teaching, research and (cont'd on schedule o)

Education

Philadelphia University

To improve lives and provide students with exceptional value in 21st century professional education.

Education

The George Washington University

Education and research

Education

The Rockefeller University

A world-renowned center for research and graduate education.

Education

New York Academy of Sciences

To advance scientific knowledge and to increase the number of scientifically informed individuals.

—

Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians At

As previously noted in this form 990, the mission of harvard medical faculty physicians at beth israel deaconess medical center, inc. is to provide extraordinary healthcare services, where the patient comes first, supported by world-class…

Health

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

The howard hughes medical institute is a philanthropy that serves society through the direct conduct of biomedical research and support for programs in science education.

Health

University of California

To raise and manage private funds to support uci's broader mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service.

Education

William Penn University

William penn university provides the opportunity for an educational experience with a focus on leadership, technology, and the quaker principles of simplicity, peace-making, intergrity, community and equality.

Education

The University of Texas Law School

Provide support to the University of Texas School of Law.

Education

University of Hartford

The university provides a learning environment in which students may transform themselves intellectually, personally and socially.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Trustees of Boston University and the most unlike its peers is Retro Report Inc. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 50 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/85

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,480

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.

05the grantee network

54 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

53/54

Grantees still filing

44/54

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Education$2,329,969Other$2,379,715Health$582,583Community Improvement$304,425Arts & Culture$165,000Public Benefit$150,199Human Services$138,500

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.

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.

The Miami Foundation IncFL25.7× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Miami Foundation Inc · The Commonwealth Fund · Institute for Nonprofit News · Laura and John Arnold Foundation · California Physicians' Service Fdn · California Healthcare Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Gordon E and Betty I Moore Foundation · The Scan Foundation · The Joyce Foundation · John S and James L Knight Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson 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 organisation NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

5get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CONNECTICUT HEALTH I-TEAM.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

low risk

7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 461068891 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on CONNECTICUT HEALTH I-TEAM, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue contracted over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 7% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to National Institute for Health Care?

Find your warmest path to National Institute for Health Care through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

54 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to National Institute for Health Care?

More from the funding graph

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH CARE

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

54 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to National Institute for Health Care?

More from the funding graph