Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
Forensic Mental Health Association (California) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $40,725 in grants to it, the largest being CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION ($30,000). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Forensic Mental Health Association has grown faster than half of the 13,210 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 13,210 health 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.
2% of Forensic Mental Health Association’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (78% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$10k from 2 funders in 2023, up from $20k and 1 in 2018.
2 of 4 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 25% 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 Forensic Mental Health Association’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Forensic Mental Health Association leans on a few funders — its largest provides 74% 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: 2018 100% · 2019 100% · 2020 100% · 2021 93% · 2022 74% · 2023 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Forensic Mental Health Association is locally rooted: 98% of its grant income comes from California 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. $625 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.
76% of spending goes to programs.
96%
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 FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), 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