Loading…
Loading…
Connecticut · Nonprofit
FAMILY CENTERS INC (Connecticut) is funded by 131 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $23,358,578 in grants to it, the largest being The Harold W McGraw Jr Family ($2,735,249). 87 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$300k from 12 funders in 2025, up from $327k and 22 in 2017.
17 of 131 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 FAMILY CENTERS INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 131 funders by total. Association, not causation.
FAMILY CENTERS INC has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 12% of grant income, and it takes 8 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 8 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 23% · 2018 20% · 2019 20% · 2020 18% · 2021 15% · 2022 14% · 2023 12% · 2024 18% · 2025 28% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
46% of FAMILY CENTERS INC's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 66% 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.
FAMILY CENTERS INC is locally rooted: 65% of its grant income comes from Connecticut 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 131 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. $47.1M on record — $12.4M federal, $34.7M 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.
86% of spending goes to programs.
94%
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 131funders 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