Loading…
Loading…
Utah · Nonprofit
CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CR (Utah) is funded by 26 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $1,451,883 in grants to it, the largest being The Ray and Tye Noorda Foundation ($500,000). 11 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CR holds deeper cash reserves than three-quarters of the 7,809 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 7,809 health nonprofits $1M–$10M, 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.
95% of CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CR’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (52% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$31k from 2 funders in 2025, up from $46k and 4 in 2017.
8 of 26 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 21% 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 CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CR’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CR leans on a few funders — its largest provides 34% of grant income and the top three 65%; 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 43% · 2018 43% · 2019 75% · 2020 60% · 2021 37% · 2022 42% · 2023 49% · 2024 22% · 2025 93% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
37% of CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CR's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 42% 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.
CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN CR is locally rooted: 86% of its grant income comes from Utah 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 26 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.
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.
87% of spending goes to programs.
97%
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 2018–2023), and the filings of 26funders 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