Loading…
Loading…
Washington · Nonprofit
Garden Village (Washington) is funded by 2 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $626,255 in grants to it, the largest being GREATER COLUMBIA ACCOUNTABLE COMMUNITY ($576,255). 2 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Garden Village has grown faster than half of the 3,322 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 3,322 health nonprofits $10M–$100M, 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.
0% of Garden Village’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (7% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 5 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
$48k from 1 funders in 2022, up from $410k and 2 in 2020.
1 of 2 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 8% 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 Garden Village’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Garden Village leans on a few funders — its largest provides 92% 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: 2020 94% · 2021 85% · 2022 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Garden Village is locally rooted: 100% of its grant income comes from Washington 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 2 funders put you under-funded among the 255 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. $163k 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.
85% of spending goes to programs.
100%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Part of a family of 4 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2017–2024), and the filings of 2funders 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