Loading…
Loading…
Texas · Nonprofit
GLOCAL MISSION (Texas) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $160,866 in grants to it, the largest being SERVANT LIFE MISSIONS INC ($145,410). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
GLOCAL MISSION is better cushioned than half of the 2,494 religion nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,494 religion nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2025
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.
78% of GLOCAL MISSION’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (98% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $24 → $86k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
1 of 4 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 0% 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 GLOCAL MISSION’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 3 of 4 funders by total. Association, not causation.
GLOCAL MISSION leans on a few funders — its largest provides 90% 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 100% · 2021 100% · 2022 69% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
GLOCAL MISSION draws 90% of its grant income from funders outside Texas — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 3 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.
78% of spending goes to programs.
100%
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 FY2025 (financials across 2018–2025), 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