· Public charity
St Alexius Medical Center
As an affiliate of commonspirit health, we make the healing presence of god known in our world by improving the health of the people we serve, especially those who are vulnerable, while we advance social justice for all.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $740,300 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $989,740 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $249,440 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 · FY2025
- Under $10k5 grants · $37k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $21k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $153k
- $250k+1 grant · $530k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BENEDICTINE SISTERS OF THE ANNUNCIATION | $530,450 |
| DREAM CENTER BISMARCK | $52,250 |
| LIGHT OF CHRIST SCHOOLS | $50,600 |
| MINISTRY ON THE MARGINS | $50,000 |
| BIO GIRLS INC | $20,500 |
| MISSOURI SLOPE LUTHERAN CARE CENTER FOUNDATION | $7,500 |
| BAREKNUCKLE BASEBALL LLC | $7,500 |
| ROCK THE RED | $7,500 |
| COMMUNITY ACTION PROGAM REGION VII | $7,000 |
| GATEWAY TO SCIENCE CENTER INC | $7,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY25–25, $59k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those 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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +26% since the first grant, against -12% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 4 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $144k 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
- AHAmerican Heart Association Inc4× · 2018–2021 · $85k · revenue +26%
- BCBISMARCK CANCER CENTER FOUNDATION3× · 2018–2020 · $28k · revenue +134%
- BCBISMARCK-MANDAN CHAMBER EDC2× · 2020–2024 · $23k · revenue +15%
Funded once
- NDND Department of Healthone grant, 2017 · $151k
- NDNORTH DAKOTA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue -80%
- CFCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $16k · revenue +29%
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.
Working together as partners to enhance the lives of area residents by providing a neighborhood of patient centered healthcare services that promote wellness, prevention and care coordination.
Madison regional health system serves as a community health focal point through the provision of compassionate, quality, and innovative care.
Exceed expectations and be the difference in the lives of those we serve.
Bring hope, health and healing to life.
Guided by our values, Catholic Charities North Dakota serves people in need and advocates for the common good of all.
Cooperstown Medical Center is dedicated to providing high quality healthcare services in a personalized, compassionate, and professional manner.
Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.
Trinity health is committed to preserving and improving the quality of health of the people we serve. our mission is to excel at meeting the needs of the whole person through the provision of quality health care and health related services.
The mission of Central Montana Medical Center is to be the leader in assuring community based quality healthcare.
The mission of the Winona Health Foundation is to gather, steward, and distribute resources needed to support and advance the mission of Winona Health and its affiliates.
The mission of Jamestown Regional Medical Center Foundation is to secure philanthropic gifts that will enhance and support the work of Jamestown Regional Medical Center.
As an affiliate of commonspirit health, we make the healing presence of god known in our world by improving the health of the people we serve, especially those who are vulnerable, while we advance social justice for all.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jacobson Memorial Hospital Care Center and the most unlike its peers is Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. 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.
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 57 years old; the field is 24. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
21 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.
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 American Heart Association Inc ↗
- Who funds Dream Center Bismarck ↗
- Who funds Ministry on the Margins ↗
- Who funds BISMARCK RECREATION COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds BISMARCK CANCER CENTER FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NORTH DAKOTA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BISMARCK-MANDAN CHAMBER EDC ↗
- Who funds BIO Girls Inc ↗
- Who funds BISMARCK MARATHON ↗
- Who funds Missouri Slope Lutheran Care Center Foundation ↗
- Who funds CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds University of Mary ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM REGION VII INC ↗
- Who funds GATEWAY TO SCIENCE CENTER INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: North Dakota Community Foundation · North Dakota Hospital Foundation · American Heart Association Inc · The Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust · Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota Caring Foundation · Sanford Group Return · Otto Bremer Trust · The Tom and Frances Leach Foundation · Midcontinent Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 St Alexius Medical Center 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.