Loading…
Loading…
New York · Nonprofit
CHAPIN HOME FOR THE AGING (New York) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $206,651 in grants to it, the largest being FAITH HOME FOUNDATION ($119,001). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
CHAPIN HOME FOR THE AGING holds deeper cash reserves than three-quarters of the 4,494 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 4,494 health nonprofits $10M–$100M, 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.
0% of CHAPIN HOME FOR THE AGING’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (7% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 7 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $8k → $20k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
1 of 4 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 CHAPIN HOME FOR THE AGING’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
CHAPIN HOME FOR THE AGING leans on a few funders — its largest provides 58% 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: 2017 100% · 2018 59% · 2019 69% · 2020 42% · 2021 50% · 2022 74% · 2023 77% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
CHAPIN HOME FOR THE AGING is locally rooted: 100% of its grant income comes from New York 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.
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.
84% of spending goes to programs.
95%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Part of a family of 1 related entity
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2017–2023), 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