Loading…
Loading…
Alaska · Nonprofit
ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT (Alaska) is funded by 10 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $184,991 in grants to it, the largest being The Alaska Community Foundation ($58,000). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT's funding has concentrated — grant income rose while the number of funders held roughly flat.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,476 crime & legal nonprofits $100k–$1M, 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.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 3 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $50 → $10k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
3 of 10 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 35% 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 ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT leans on a few funders — its largest provides 31% of grant income and the top three 79%; 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: 2017 100% · 2018 88% · 2019 100% · 2020 69% · 2021 86% · 2022 75% · 2023 63% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
22% of ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 40% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year.
ALASKA INNOCENCE PROJECT is locally rooted: 58% of its grant income comes from Alaska 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 10 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. $249k 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.
100%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2021–2023), and the filings of 10funders 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