Skip to content
Senior Resources of West Michigan at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Senior Resources of West Michigan

Provide comprehensive and coordinated services to the aging population of Muskegon, Ottawa, and Oceana Counties

$2.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.6M
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 2025.

Food & Nutrition$15MHuman Services$2.9MCrime & Legal$254kPublic Safety & Disaster$103kHousing & Shelter$29kHealth$10k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k3 grants · $61k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $289k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.6M
$65,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Agewell Services$1,611,502
Evergreen Commons$126,000
North Ottawa Council on Ag$97,708
Community Access Line of L$65,000
Legal Aid of Western Michi$29,500
Oceana County Council on A$18,500
Hackley Community Care Cen$12,899
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 (FY17–25, $2.8M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%North Ottawa Council on Ag: $102k → 8%Evergreen Commons: $166k → 10%FOUR POINTES: $79k → 16%North Ottawa Council on Ag: $99k → 8%Evergreen Commons: $126k → 10%Oceana County Council on A: $38k → 16%North Ottawa Council on Ag: $98k → 8%Evergreen Commons: $119k → 10%Oceana County Council on A: $28k → 16%North Ottawa Council on Ag: $98k → 8%Evergreen Commons: $113k → 10%OCEANA COUNCIL ON AGING: $28k → 16%North Ottawa Council on Ag: $91k → 8%EVERGREEN COMMONS: $90k → 10%OCEANA COUNCIL ON AGING: $26k → 16%North Ottawa Council on Ag: $86k → 8%Evergreen Commons: $89k → 10%Oceana County Council on A: $19k → 16%NORTH OTTAWA COUNCIL ON AG: $73k → 8%EVERGREEN COMMONS: $87k → 10%Oceana County Council on A: $19k → 16%FOUR POINTES: $58k → 8%Evergreen Commons: $65k → 10%Community Access Line of L: $118k → 15%Oceana County Council on A: $13k → 16%EVERGREEN COMMONS: $52k → 10%Communty Access Line of La: $95k → 15%OCEANA COUNTY COUNCIL ON A: $13k → 16%Community Access Line of L: $83k → 15%Oceana County Council on A: $10k → 16%The Little Red House: $71k → 8%Community Access Line of L: $79k → 15%THE LITTLE RED HOUSE: $59k → 8%Community Access Line of L: $74k → 15%The Little Red House: $45k → 8%Community Access Line of L: $65k → 15%THE LITTLE RED HOUSE: $21k → 8%The Little Red House: $10k → 8%COMMUNITY ACCESS LINE OF L: $50k → 15%The Little Red House: $8k → 8%COMMUNITY ACCESS LINE OF LAKESHORE: $50k → 15%THE LITTLE RED HOUSE: $6k → 8%COMMUNITY ACCESS LINE OF L: $50k → 15%Pioneer Resources Inc: $30k → 15%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18M · 11 repeat orgs$30k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +48% since the first grant, against -9% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$18M
$30k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%
-9%

Still filing today

91%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesFood & NutritionCrime & LegalOther
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

  • AS
    AGEWELL SERVICES OF WEST MICHIGAN
    9× · 2017–2025 · $15M · revenue +34% · 45% of their budget
  • EC
    EVERGREEN COMMONS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $908k · revenue +125%
  • NO
    NORTH OTTAWA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING
    9× · 2017–2025 · $784k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • PR
    PIONEER RESOURCES
    one grant, 2023 · $30k · revenue -9%
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
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
2
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.

—
3
Otsego County Commission On Aging

To enrich the lives of the senior population of otsego county, with an emphasis on providing meals and services, in order to maintain their independence.

—
4
Marinette County Committee on Aging Inc

Our mission at Marinette County Elderly Services is to assist older persons in maintaining a longer, healthier, and more fulfilled life.

Human Services
5
Region Ii Commission On Services to the Aging

The area agency on aging's mission is to improve conditions affecting the lives of the older adults and individuals with disabilities in the region by: identifying concerns of those people and developing a comprehensive and coordinated…

Human Services
6
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
7
Council On Aging of Elkhart County Inc

The mission of the council on aging is to support the aging of elkhart county by providing services and resources which fosterwellness, dignity, independence and quality of life.

—
8
Wexford County Council On Aging

To provide resources and support for wexford county residents, sixty and older.

Human Services
9
Hillsdale County Senior Services Center Inc

To support and promote a means for maintaining a senior center in order to achieve specific goals, based on the needs and interests of older persons, those 50 and older except for those programs that receive state and federal funding which…

Human Services
10
Eldercare Lake County

Promote the health and independence of lake county, il, older adults

Human Services
11
Eastern Area Agency on Aging

It is the mission of Eastern Area Agency on Aging to be the best source of information, options, and services for seniors, adults with disabilities, and caregivers.

Human Services
12
Area 1 Agency On Aging

Area 1 agency on aging provides leadership and services that support and promote healthy aging.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oceana County Council On Aging; the most unlike its peers is Hackley Community Care Center Inc. 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

11 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. 11 of the 12 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
9/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

AGEWELL SERVICES OF WEST MICHIGAN: $15,026,748 · Food & NutritionAGEWELL SERVICES OF WEST MICHIGANEVERGREEN COMMONS: $907,890 · Human ServicesEVERGREEN COMMONSNORTH OTTAWA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $783,645 · Human ServicesNORTH OTTAWA COUN…COMMUNITY ACCESS LINE OF THE LAKESHORE 211: $663,211 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY ACCESS …THE LITTLE RED HOUSE INC: $220,461 · Human ServicesTHE LITTLE RED HO…OCEANA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $191,076 · Human ServicesOCEANA COUNTY COU…+1 more: $30,000 · Human ServicesLegal Aid of Western Michigan: $253,582 · Crime & LegalAMERICAN RED CROSS: $103,171 · OtherHackley Community Care Center Inc: $83,721 · OtherTRI-CITIES AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $29,444 · OtherDA BLODGETT - ST JOHN'S: $22,594 · Other
Food & Nutrition$15,026,748Human Services$2,796,283Crime & Legal$253,582Other$238,930

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 budgetAGEWELL SERVICES OF WEST MICHIGAN: $15,026,748 over 9y, 45% of budgetEVERGREEN COMMONS: $907,890 over 9y, 3.7% of budgetNORTH OTTAWA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $783,645 over 9y, 9.5% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACCESS LINE OF THE LAKESHORE 211: $663,211 over 9y, 16% of budgetLegal Aid of Western Michigan: $253,582 over 9y, 0.5% of budgetTHE LITTLE RED HOUSE INC: $220,461 over 7y, 15% of budgetOCEANA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING: $191,076 over 9y, 2.1% of budgetHackley Community Care Center Inc: $83,721 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetPIONEER RESOURCES: $30,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTRI-CITIES AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $29,444 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetDA BLODGETT - ST JOHN'S: $22,594 over 2y, 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.

  • Who funds AGEWELL SERVICES OF WEST MICHIGAN ↗
  • Who funds EVERGREEN COMMONS ↗
  • Who funds NORTH OTTAWA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY ACCESS LINE OF THE LAKESHORE 211 ↗
  • Who funds Legal Aid of Western Michigan ↗
  • Who funds THE LITTLE RED HOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds OCEANA COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING ↗
  • Who funds Hackley Community Care Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds PIONEER RESOURCES ↗
  • Who funds TRI-CITIES AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC ↗
  • Who funds DA BLODGETT - ST JOHN'S ↗

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.

Grand Haven Area Comm…Community Foundation …Michigan Health Endow…Mercy Health PartnersUnited Way of the Lak…Natl Christian Charit…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Grand Haven Area Community Foundation IncMI17.7× affinity6 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Grand Haven Area Community Foundation Inc · Community Foundation for Muskegon County · Michigan Health Endowment Fund · Mercy Health Partners · United Way of the Lakeshore · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Senior Resources of West Michigan funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Senior Resources of West Michigan. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%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 · 0–20%
    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 12 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Senior Resources of West Michigan’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