Loading…
Loading…
Georgia · Nonprofit
HEALING GUATEMALA (Georgia) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $325,781 in grants to it, the largest being NATL CHRISTIAN CHARITABLE FDN INC ($221,100). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
HEALING GUATEMALA has grown faster than half of the 4,380 international nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 4,380 international nonprofits $100k–$1M, 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.
100% of HEALING GUATEMALA’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (100% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 1 funders to 3 as grant income moved $18k → $95k.
5 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 97% 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 HEALING GUATEMALA’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
HEALING GUATEMALA leans on a few funders — its largest provides 68% of grant income and the top three 96%; 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 50% · 2021 58% · 2022 74% · 2023 84% · 2024 81% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
HEALING GUATEMALA is locally rooted: 68% of its grant income comes from Georgia 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.
88% 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 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