Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
HEALTHRIGHT 360 (California) is funded by 99 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $35,482,722 in grants to it, the largest being San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium ($20,045,230). 54 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $377k → $3.3M on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
15 of 99 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 5% 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 HEALTHRIGHT 360’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 99 funders by total. Association, not causation.
HEALTHRIGHT 360 leans on a few funders — its largest provides 56% of grant income and the top three 73%; 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: 2017 27% · 2018 79% · 2019 83% · 2020 25% · 2021 76% · 2022 45% · 2023 55% · 2024 22% · 2025 90% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
35% of HEALTHRIGHT 360's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 55% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year.
HEALTHRIGHT 360 is locally rooted: 91% of its grant income comes from California 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 99 funders put you typical among the 400 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. $19.2M 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.
86% of spending goes to programs.
99%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Part of a family of 3 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), and the filings of 99funders 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