Loading…
Loading…
Illinois · Nonprofit
CHRISTOPHER RURAL HEALTH PLANNING (Illinois) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $1,738,274 in grants to it, the largest being Illinois Primary Health Care Association ($1,640,731). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
CHRISTOPHER RURAL HEALTH PLANNING is better cushioned than half of the 411 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 411 health nonprofits $10M–$100M, FY2025
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.
11% of CHRISTOPHER RURAL HEALTH PLANNING’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (7% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
$19k from 2 funders in 2024, up from $48k and 1 in 2017.
From the IRS filings of CHRISTOPHER RURAL HEALTH PLANNING’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 3 of 4 funders by total. Association, not causation.
CHRISTOPHER RURAL HEALTH PLANNING leans on a few funders — its largest provides 94% 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 84% · 2021 100% · 2022 100% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
CHRISTOPHER RURAL HEALTH PLANNING is locally rooted: 100% of its grant income comes from Illinois 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.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $45.7M 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.
81% of spending goes to programs.
93%
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 FY2025 (financials across 2018–2025), 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