· Public charity
Network for Regional Healthcare Improvement
Civitas networks for health is the leading voice and convener for organizations working to use data to improve health in communities across the country.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 45% of CIVITAS NETWORKS FOR HEALTH’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 9 grants below total $92,661 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $96,658 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $3,997 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2019
- Under $10k4 grants · $23k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $69k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| COMAGINE HEALTH | $20,000 |
| HEALTH COLLABORATIVE | $16,143 |
| INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT (ICSI) | $12,500 |
| GREATER DETROIT AREA HEALTH COUNCIL | $10,620 |
| MARYLAND HEALTH CARE COMMISSION (MHCC) | $10,000 |
| MASSACHUTTES HEALTH QUALITY PARTNERS (MHQP) | $6,429 |
| WASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCE (WHA) | $6,428 |
| KENTUCKIANA HEALTH COLLABORATIVE | $5,541 |
| VIRGINIA HEALTH INFORMATION | $5,000 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 68% of your 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.
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.
14 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2019, 6 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (too recent to call).
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 FY2019, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k 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
- CFCENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTH CARE2× · 2017–2018 · $150k · revenue +93%
- MHMIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVE2× · 2017–2018 · $125k · revenue +27%
- MHMassachusetts Health Quality Partners Inc3× · 2017–2019 · $76k · revenue +56%
Funded once
- OHOREGON HEALTH CARE QUALITY CORPORATIONone grant, 2017 · $70k
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.
To optimize the whole-person health of the more than 400,000 residents of the western colorado medical trade area qhn serves. qhn's health information exchange (hie) improves the efficiency, timeliness, and quality of the healthcare…
To unlock the potential of value-based health care by defining global standard sets of outcome measures that really matter to patients for the most relevant medical conditions and by driving adoption and reporting of these measures…
To enable support and promote whole-person care in the district of columbia and the region by appropriately and securely sharing data to facilitate efficient care and improve health outcomes.
Engaging and aligning providers and stakeholders to establish Kansas as a role model for health care quality and a top performer in health care outcomes.
The mission of the national coalition on health care (nchc) is to support research and analysis, develop and promote policy solutions, build consensus, and engage the public in order to ensure that america has a high quality health system…
As the parent entity of a blended health organization, highmark health seeks to improve the health and well-being of the people and communities it serves by providing affordable, accessible and high-quality healthcare.
Executives for Health Innovation (EHI) is a catalyst for healthcare transformation, convening diverse leaders from across the industry to unlock opportunities for collaborative innovation. EHI focuses on collaborative learning, shaping…
Cahiim's mission is to provide innovative leadership that drives enhanced workforce competence by ensuring educational excellence. cahiim serves the public interest in advancing the value of health informatics and health information…
To shape health care through workforce strategy, stakeholder convening, and policy advocacy.
The alliance is a collaborative of private employers and public trusts dedicated to lowering healthcare costs and improving quality. through collective and innovative strategies, alliance members drive the change they want to see in…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Washington Health Alliance and the most unlike its peers is Health Care Improvement Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 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. 15 of the 16 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 HEALTHINSIGHT MANAGEMENT CORP ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTH CARE ↗
- Who funds MN COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT ↗
- Who funds MIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds THE HEALTH COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds Massachusetts Health Quality Partners Inc ↗
- Who funds OREGON HEALTH CARE QUALITY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds THE GREATER DETROIT HEALTH TRANSITION COMPANY ↗
- Who funds VIRGINIA HEALTH INFORMATION ↗
- Who funds INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT ↗
- Who funds HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds COMAGINE HEALTH ↗
- Who funds KENTUCKIANA HEALTH COLLABORATIVE ↗
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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Amazonsmile 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 Network for Regional Healthcare Improvement 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.
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.