Loading…
· Public charity
Senior Resources of West Michigan
To provide a comprehensive and coordinated system of services designed to promote the independence and dignity of older adults and families
$2.0M
Granted FY2024
9
Grants
1
Communities
$1.6M
Largest
01What you fund
0198% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2024.
Food & Nutrition$12MHuman Services$2.1MCrime & Legal$199kOther$363k
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
2019
legalinformationagingredhealthrespect
2020
care serv
2021
care serv
2022
care serv
2023
care serv
2024
care serv
2025
care serv
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 9 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k5 grants · $97k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $286k
- $250k+1 grant · $1.6M
$29,969
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
- Agewell Services$1,628,187
- Evergreen Commons$113,214
- North Ottawa Council on Ag$98,878
- Community Access Line of L$73,845
- Legal Aid of Western Michi$29,969
- Tri-Cities Area Habitat fo$22,444
- Oceana County Council on A$18,500
- Hackley Community Care Cen$13,000
- DA Blodgett - St Johns$12,980
02The need
04
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 (FY18–24, $2.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 8%. 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.
100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$15M · 11 repeat orgs$30k to everyone else
11 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
11
1
Total granted
$15M
$30k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+29%
+65%
Still filing today
82%
100%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Human ServicesFood & NutritionCrime & LegalOther
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
- ASAgewell Services7× · 2018–2024 · $12M · revenue +30% · 45% of their budget
- ECEvergreen Commons7× · 2018–2024 · $730k · revenue +29%
- NONorth Ottawa Council on Ag7× · 2018–2024 · $607k · revenue +29%
Funded once
- PRPioneer Resources Incgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue +65%
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.
1
Area Agency On Aging of Western
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
2
Auglaize County Council On Aging
To provide services to the elderly of auglaize county.
Human Services
3
Marinette County Elderly Services
We provide supportive programs for senior citizens in Marinette County, Wisconsin. This would include congregate and home delivered meals, transportation, legal/benefit counseling, Alzheimer's and Family Caregiver Support, health…
Human Services
4
Oscoda County Council On Aging
Organized exclusively to plan, operate and coordinate programs, public and private, to promote and safeguard the independence, care, well-being, and security for senior citizens and elderly in oscoda county, michigan.
—
5
ShareCare of Leelanau Inc
To facilitate connecting the Leelanau county community of seniors with services and activities that promote a healthy independent and fulfilled lifestyle while aging.
Human Services
6
Pace North
A provider of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) which is a community-based, long-term care delivery program that provides comprehensive, coordinated, managed care to eligible participants.
Health
7
Northern Oswego County Health Services
To provide the community with quality healthcare and promote the wellness of the community.
Health
8
Council on Aging Services for Seniors
The Council on Aging provides essential services to our senior community through an integrated network of programs working together to fulfill our clients' needs. We currently have 12 programs including: Meals on Wheels, Senior Dining…
—
9
Wells County Council On Aging Inc
To provide services deemed appropriate for the community and to promote independence, dignity, and advocacy for all older adults and persons with disabilities.
Human Services
10
Lake County Council On Aging Inc
—
11
Allen County Council on Aging Inc
To provide services which enhance the quality of life of Allen County residents age 60 and older so that they may remain living independently in their own homes with dignity and choice as long as possible.
—
12
Tippecanoe County Council On Aging Inc
Providing seniors with services and programs to promote overall wellness.
Human Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oceana County Council On Aging and the most unlike its peers is Evergreen Commons. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
10 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Food & Nutrition$12,313,831Human Services$2,062,062Other$363,424Crime & Legal$199,090
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 Agewell Services ↗
- Who funds Evergreen Commons ↗
- Who funds North Ottawa Council on Ag ↗
- Who funds Communty Access Line of La ↗
- Who funds Legal Aid of Western Michi ↗
- Who funds Oceana County Council on A ↗
- Who funds Hackley Community Care Cen ↗
- Who funds Pioneer Resources Inc ↗
- Who funds Tri-Cities Area Habitat fo ↗
- Who funds DA Blodgett - St Johns ↗
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.
Community Foundation for Muskegon CountyMI18× affinity6 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Muskegon County · Grand Haven Area Community · Michigan Health Endowment Fund · Mercy Health Partners · United Way of the Lakeshore · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 organisation Senior Resources of West Michigan 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
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: Agewell Services.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
high risk
~2 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 7 filed years.
Track record & reputation
low risk
7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 382033822 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 Agewell Services, 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
- FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 45% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- 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 Senior Resources of West Michigan?
Find your warmest path to Senior Resources of West Michigan 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.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines