Skip to content
Van Andel Research Institute at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Van Andel Research Institute

Medical research organization VAN ANDEL RESEARCH INSTITUTE is an independent biomedical research organization committed to improving the health and enhancing the lives of current and future generations.

$1.0M
Granted FY2017
6
Grants FY2017
5
States reached
$156k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

93% of Van Andel Research Institute’s FY2024 grant dollars went to Entertainment Industry Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2024 names 3 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2017, the last year Van Andel Research Institute named its own grantees at scale: 5 organizations, $607k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

5
’17
5
’18
1
’19
2
’20
2
’21
1
’22
3
’23
3
’24

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2024.

Health$7.3MEducation$544kRecreation & Sports$89kCommunity Improvement$75kScience & Tech$55k
02FY2017 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $607,279, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,012,021 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $404,742 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 · FY2017

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $49k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $550k
$146,253
Median grant
5
States reached
$190M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$155,875
MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER$150,000
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY$146,253
INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH$97,467
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA$48,684
FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK$9,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $49k → 14%MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $150k → 17%THE ECONOMIC CLUB OF GRAND RAPIDS: $25k → 11%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $156k → 16%GORDON RESEARCH: $15k → 7%BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY: $5k → 8%UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: $50k → 11%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $146k → 19%INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $97k → 22%STAND UP TO CANCER: $1.9M → 14%THE ECONOMIC CLUB OF GRAND RAPIDS: $25k → 11%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $5k → 16%GORDON RESEARCH: $8k → 7%JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $143k → 19%INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH: $54k → 22%STAND UP TO CANCER: $1.5M → 14%THE ECONOMIC CLUB OF GRAND RAPIDS: $25k → 11%STAND UP TO CANCER: $1.3M → 14%FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $21k → 11%STAND UP TO CANCER: $625k → 14%FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $17k → 11%STAND UP TO CANCER: $625k → 14%FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $15k → 11%STAND UP TO CANCER: $625k → 14%FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $10k → 11%STAND UP TO CANCER: $513k → 14%FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $10k → 11%FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $9k → 11%FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $8k → 11%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.

Grants abroad, by region: $790k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$790k · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: TO FUND LINKED CLINICAL TRIALS RESEARCH COLLABORATION

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

61%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$637k · 5 repeat orgs$407k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +64% since the first grant, against -3% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2017, 2 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2017 (too recent to call). Read against FY2017, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
6

Total granted

$637k
$407k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+64%
-3%

Still filing today

80%
83%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthEducationRecreation & SportsScience & 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

  • JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2017–2018 · $290k · revenue +64%
  • MS
    MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2017–2020 · $161k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK
    7× · 2017–2024 · $89k · revenue -24% · 100% of their budget

Funded once

  • MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $150k · revenue +121%
  • FC
    Fox Chase Cancer Center Foundation
    one grant, 2017 · $97k · revenue -72%
  • TI
    The Institute For Cancer Research
    one grant, 2018 · $54k · revenue -3%
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
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.

Education
2
Asco Association

Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…

Community Improvement
3
American Society of Clinical Oncology Inc

See schedule o:asco is a professional oncology society committed to conquering cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care.

Health
4
Arc Research Institute

Our mission is to accelerate scientific progress, understand the root causes of disease, and narrow the gap between discoveries and impact on patients.

Health
5
American College of Radiology

The american college of radiology (acr) is organized to advance radiology science, practice and access, improve quality and safety, provide continuing education for radiology and allied professionals, and achieve better outcomes through…

Health
6
The Trustees of Princeton University

Research, education and general - princeton university is a private not-for-profit, non-sectarian institution of higher learning with approximately 5,700 undergraduate and 3,300 graduate students. 2,500 students graduated in the 2024-2025…

Education
7
Cornell University

Education, research, medical services and other public services.

Education
8
The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel

Enhance the ability of actec members to provide the most efficient and highest quality services to their clients; develop qualified trust and estate counselors; improve and reform probate, trust and tax laws, procedures, and standards of…

Community Improvement
9
Trustees of Boston University

Organization's mission: boston university is an international, comprehensive, private research university, committed to educating students to be reflective, resourceful individuals ready to live, adapt, and lead in an interconnected world.…

—
10
Indiana University Health Care Associates Inc

To deliver preeminent medical care and service to our patients and communities through outstanding and innovative medical leadership and practice, while participating in and supporting excellence in education and research. We achieve this…

Health
11
California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy

To harness the power of the human immune system and advanced computing technologies to create and translate scientific discoveries into next generation vaccines and therapies for prevention, control and cure of chronic diseases, enabling…

Health
12
Case Western Reserve University

Case Western Reserve University is an independent, research-oriented university with broadly based strengths in health, including medicine, nursing and dentistry; in engineering; in the arts and sciences; and in law, management and social…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Institute for Cancer Research; the most unlike its peers is The Economic Club of Grand Rapids. 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 13 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
5/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOUNDATION: $6,998,113 · PhilanthropyENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOUNDATIONJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $289,713 · EducationTemple University - Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education: $50,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $48,684 · EducationMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $150,000 · HealthFox Chase Cancer Center Foundation: $97,467 · HealthThe Institute For Cancer Research: $54,243 · HealthMICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $161,120 · OtherTHE ECONOMIC CLUB OF GRAND RAPIDS: $75,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK: $50,000 · Other+1 more: $5,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $88,750 · Recreation & SportsGORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES INC: $22,500 · Science & Tech
Philanthropy$6,998,113Education$388,397Health$301,710Other$291,120Recreation & Sports$88,750Science & Tech$22,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOUNDATION: $6,998,113 over 7y, 2.5% of budgetJOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: $289,713 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER: $150,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF CRESCENT PARK: $88,750 over 7y, 100% of budgetTHE ECONOMIC CLUB OF GRAND RAPIDS: $75,000 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetThe Institute For Cancer Research: $54,243 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTemple University - Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $48,684 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES INC: $22,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY: $5,000 over 1y, 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Van Andel Research Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Van Andel Research Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →median 12%
  • Johns Hopkins University: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Van Andel Research Institute?

Find your warmest path to Van Andel Research Institute through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

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 13 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Van Andel Research Institute’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