Loading…
Loading…
North Carolina · Nonprofit
ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES OF GUILFORD (North Carolina) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $2,659,122 in grants to it, the largest being Moses Cone - Wesley Long Community ($2,137,179). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES OF GUILFORD is better cushioned than half of the 6,792 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 6,792 health nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2024
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.
51% of ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES OF GUILFORD’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (52% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
$46k from 1 funders in 2025, up from $449k and 4 in 2018.
From the IRS filings of ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES OF GUILFORD’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES OF GUILFORD leans on a few funders — its largest provides 80% of grant income and the top three 99%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 67% · 2019 85% · 2020 85% · 2021 86% · 2022 90% · 2023 90% · 2024 70% · 2025 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES OF GUILFORD is locally rooted: 100% of its grant income comes from North Carolina 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 4 funders put you under-funded among the 174 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. $2.9M 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.
99%
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 FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), and the filings of 4funders 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