Skip to content
Network for Regional Healthcare Improvement at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$97k
Granted FY2019
9
Grants FY2019
8
States reached
$20k
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 2019.

Health$1.3M
02FY2019 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $92,661, the rows itemized in this filing. The $96,658 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $3,997 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 · FY2019

  • Under $10k4 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $69k
$10,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–19) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 68% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH QUALITY PARTNERS: $39k → 8%MINNESOTA COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT (MNCM): $71k → 11%HEALTHCARE IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION (HCIF): $16k → 22%INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES: $37k → 10%GREATER DETROIT AREA HEALTH COUNCIL: $18k → 8%MIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVE (MHI): $67k → 11%OREGON HEALTH CARE QUALITY CORPORATION (Q CORP): $70k → 12%HEALTHINSIGHT TOTAL: $227k → 8%CENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTHCARE (CIVHC): $79k → 12%HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $40k → 16%WASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCE: $59k → 9%VIRGINIA HEALTH INFORMATION: $20k → 22%MARYLAND HEALTH CARE COMMISSION (MHCC): $24k → 19%KENTUCKIANA HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $7k → 15%MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH QUALITY PARTNERS: $30k → 8%MINNESOTA COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT (MNCM): $65k → 11%HEALTHCARE IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION (HCIF): $5k → 22%INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES: $8k → 10%GREATER DETROIT AREA HEALTH COUNCIL: $11k → 8%MIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVE (MHI): $59k → 11%HEALTHINSIGHT TOTAL: $86k → 8%CENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTHCARE (CIVHC): $71k → 12%HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $29k → 16%WASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCE: $35k → 9%VIRGINIA HEALTH INFORMATION: $5k → 22%MARYLAND HEALTH CARE COMMISSION (MHCC): $16k → 19%KENTUCKIANA HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $6k → 15%MASSACHUTTES HEALTH QUALITY PARTNERS (MHQP): $6k → 8%INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT: $15k → 11%HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $16k → 16%WASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCE (WHA): $6k → 9%VIRGINIA HEALTH INFORMATION: $4k → 22%MARYLAND HEALTH CARE COMMISSION (MHCC): $10k → 19%INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT (ICSI): $13k → 11%COMAGINE HEALTH: $20k → 9%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
MI
MA
OR
OH
PA
CA
UT
CO
MO
KY
VA
MD
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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 14 repeat orgs$90k to everyone else

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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
1

Total granted

$1.2M
$70k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-15%
0%

Still filing today

71%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $20k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19
HealthEducationScience & TechOther
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

  • CF
    CENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTH CARE
    2× · 2017–2018 · $150k · revenue +93%
  • MH
    MIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVE
    2× · 2017–2018 · $125k · revenue +27%
  • MH
    Massachusetts Health Quality Partners Inc
    3× · 2017–2019 · $76k · revenue +56%

Funded once

  • OH
    OREGON HEALTH CARE QUALITY CORPORATION
    one grant, 2017 · $70k
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
Quality Health Network

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…

Health
2
HealthInfoNet
Public Benefit
3
National Committee for Quality Assurance

Our mission: to improve the quality of health care.our vision: better health care. better choices. better health.

Health
4
Civitas Networks for Health

Civitas networks for health is the leading voice and convener for organizations working to use data to improve health in communities across the country. by bringing together local implementers - health information exchanges (hies),…

Health
5
Massachusetts E-Health Collaborative
—
6
International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Inc

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…

Health
7
Crisp Dc

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.

Health
8
Kansas Healthcare Collaborative Inc

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.

Health
9
National Coalition On Health Care

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…

Health
10
Executives for Health Innovation Ehi

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…

—
11
Highmark Health

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.

Health
12
Arizona Hospital & Healthcare Association

Bringing together diverse voices to advance health and healthcare in arizona.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Washington Health Alliance; 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.
04the grantee network

15 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. 15 of the 16 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/15
Grantees still filing
7/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTH CARE: $150,333 · HealthCENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTH CAREMN COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT: $135,333 · HealthMN COMMUNITY MEASUREMENTMIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVE: $125,000 · HealthMIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVEWASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCE: $100,010 · HealthWASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCETHE HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $85,000 · HealthTHE HEALTH COLLABORATIVE+1 more: $12,398 · HealthHEALTHINSIGHT MANAGEMENT CORP: $312,339 · OtherHEALTHINSIGHT MANAGEMENT CORPOREGON HEALTH CARE QUALITY CORPORATION: $69,523 · OtherOREGON HEALTH CARE QUALITY CORPORATIONUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $49,999 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARKINTEGRATED HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION: $45,026 · OtherINTEGRATED HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATIONTHE GREATER DETROIT HEALTH TRANSITION COMPANY: $29,041 · OtherINSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT: $27,500 · OtherHEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION: $20,718 · OtherCOMAGINE HEALTH: $20,000 · OtherMassachusetts Health Quality Partners Inc: $75,751 · EducationVIRGINIA HEALTH INFORMATION: $28,647 · Science & Tech
Health$608,074Other$574,146Education$75,751Science & Tech$28,647

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHEALTHINSIGHT MANAGEMENT CORP: $312,339 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetCENTER FOR IMPROVING VALUE IN HEALTH CARE: $150,333 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetMN COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT: $135,333 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetMIDWEST HEALTH INITIATIVE: $125,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetWASHINGTON HEALTH ALLIANCE: $100,010 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetTHE HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $85,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetMassachusetts Health Quality Partners Inc: $75,751 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetOREGON HEALTH CARE QUALITY CORPORATION: $69,523 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetINTEGRATED HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION: $45,026 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTHE GREATER DETROIT HEALTH TRANSITION COMPANY: $29,041 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetVIRGINIA HEALTH INFORMATION: $28,647 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT: $27,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetHEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT FOUNDATION: $20,718 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetCOMAGINE HEALTH: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKENTUCKIANA HEALTH COLLABORATIVE: $12,398 over 2y, 1.7% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA1.1× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Network for Regional Healthcare Improvement funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Network for Regional Healthcare Improvement. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 16 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Network for Regional Healthcare Improvement’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