Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP (California) is funded by 7 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $79,244 in grants to it, the largest being THE AYCO CHARITABLE FOUNDATION ($22,500). 5 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP has grown faster than half of the 20,812 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 20,812 human services nonprofits $100k–$1M, 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.
8% of COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (87% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 5 reported years ran a deficit.
$1k from 1 funders in 2024, up from $14k and 2 in 2017.
5 of 7 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 80% 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 COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 28% of grant income, and it takes 3 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 3 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 64% · 2019 100% · 2020 54% · 2021 55% · 2022 48% · 2023 89% · 2024 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP draws 74% of its grant income from funders outside California — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 5 states in all.
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. $308k 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.
95% of spending goes to programs.
29%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Part of a family of 24 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2019–2023), and the filings of 7funders 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