Loading…
Loading…
Ohio · Nonprofit
FRIENDSHIP ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE (Ohio) is funded by 35 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $1,182,499 in grants to it, the largest being SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND ($241,210). 22 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
FRIENDSHIP ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE holds deeper cash reserves than three-quarters of the 1,477 animals nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,477 animals nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2024
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.
66% of FRIENDSHIP ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (74% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 0 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $26k → $83k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
10 of 35 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 55% 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 FRIENDSHIP ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 35 funders by total. Association, not causation.
FRIENDSHIP ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 20% of grant income, and it takes 4 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 4 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 100% · 2018 24% · 2019 23% · 2020 36% · 2021 29% · 2022 25% · 2023 33% · 2024 34% · 2025 88% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
40% of FRIENDSHIP ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 63% 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.
FRIENDSHIP ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEAGUE draws 59% of its grant income from funders outside Ohio — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 17 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. Your 35 funders put you typical 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.
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.
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 FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), and the filings of 35funders 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