Loading…
Loading…
Michigan · Nonprofit
HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER (Michigan) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $1,925,316 in grants to it, the largest being MICHIGAN HEALTH & HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ($856,081). 5 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER's revenue grew 29% between 2018 and 2023.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 4,494 health nonprofits $10M–$100M, FY2023
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
2% of HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (7% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$75k from 2 funders in 2024, up from $76k and 2 in 2018.
1 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 0% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER leans on a few funders — its largest provides 44% of grant income and the top three 95%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 89% · 2019 92% · 2020 54% · 2021 66% · 2022 61% · 2023 87% · 2024 84% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
HILLSDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER is locally rooted: 100% of its grant income comes from Michigan funders.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 6 funders put you typical among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $494k on record.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
85% of spending goes to programs.
Operates in 1 state
Part of a family of 2 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), and the filings of 6funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing