Loading…
Loading…
Oregon · Nonprofit
Autism Family Support of Rural Clackamas (Oregon) is funded by 3 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $51,500 in grants to it, the largest being John and Ginger Niemeyer Foundation ($40,000). 0 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Autism Family Support of Rural Clackamas has grown faster than half of the 12,769 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 12,769 health nonprofits $100k–$1M, 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.
100% of Autism Family Support of Rural Clackamas’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (78% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 4 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $12k → $40k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
From the IRS filings of Autism Family Support of Rural Clackamas’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Autism Family Support of Rural Clackamas leans on a few funders — its largest provides 78% of grant income and the top three 100%; 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: 2021 87% · 2023 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Autism Family Support of Rural Clackamas is locally rooted: 100% of its grant income comes from Oregon 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 3 funders put you under-funded 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. $368k 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.
96% of spending goes to programs.
0%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2021–2024), and the filings of 3funders 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