Loading…
Loading…
Utah · Nonprofit
GIV COMMUNITIES (Utah) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $221,326 in grants to it, the largest being Edwards Mother Earth Foundation ($100,000). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
GIV COMMUNITIES runs a healthier operating margin than three-quarters of the 2,451 recreation & sports nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,451 recreation & sports 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.
7% of GIV COMMUNITIES’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (13% 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.
$75k from 1 funders in 2024, up from $110k and 3 in 2020.
2 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 34% 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 GIV COMMUNITIES’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
GIV COMMUNITIES leans on a few funders — its largest provides 45% of grant income and the top three 92%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2020 91% · 2021 100% · 2022 100% · 2023 100% · 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.
GIV COMMUNITIES draws 82% of its grant income from funders outside Utah — 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.
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.
92% of spending goes to programs.
79%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Part of a family of 8 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 6funders 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