Loading…
Loading…
Nevada · Nonprofit
GSN FOUNDATION (Nevada) is funded by 2 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $252,000 in grants to it, the largest being GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEVADA ($165,000). 2 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
GSN FOUNDATION runs a healthier operating margin than three-quarters of the 148 science & tech nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 148 science & tech 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.
62% of GSN FOUNDATION’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (67% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 0 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $6k → $40k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
1 of 2 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 35% 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 GSN FOUNDATION’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
GSN FOUNDATION leans on a few funders — its largest provides 65% 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: 2019 100% · 2020 100% · 2021 100% · 2022 100% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
GSN FOUNDATION is locally rooted: 65% of its grant income comes from Nevada 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.
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.
81%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Part of a family of 1 related entity
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 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