Loading…
Loading…
Washington · Nonprofit
BUILDING TRANSPARENCY (Washington) is funded by 5 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $2,244,945 in grants to it, the largest being Breakthrough Energy Foundation ($1,550,000). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
BUILDING TRANSPARENCY has grown faster than half of the 1,995 environment nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,995 environment 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.
67% of BUILDING TRANSPARENCY’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (88% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 5 reported years ran a deficit.
$25k from 1 funders in 2025, up from $25k and 1 in 2021.
1 of 5 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 BUILDING TRANSPARENCY’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
BUILDING TRANSPARENCY leans on a few funders — its largest provides 69% of grant income and the top three 97%; 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 100% · 2022 51% · 2023 86% · 2024 94% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
BUILDING TRANSPARENCY is locally rooted: 75% of its grant income comes from Washington 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 5 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. $4k on record — $3k federal, $995 state.
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.
82% of spending goes to programs.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2020–2024), and the filings of 5funders 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