Loading…
Loading…
Washington, D.C. · Nonprofit
HIGH-ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEFENSE FUND (Washington, D.C.) is funded by 8 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $1,028,478 in grants to it, the largest being INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ($400,000). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
HIGH-ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEFENSE FUND is better cushioned than half of the 1,507 employment nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,507 employment nonprofits under $100k, FY2023
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 HIGH-ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEFENSE FUND’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (46% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 5 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 3 funders to 4 as grant income moved $69k → $346k.
From the IRS filings of HIGH-ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEFENSE FUND’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
HIGH-ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEFENSE FUND leans on a few funders — its largest provides 39% of grant income and the top three 75%; 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: 2018 56% · 2019 41% · 2020 58% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
HIGH-ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEFENSE FUND is locally rooted: 82% of its grant income comes from Washington, D.C. 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 8 funders put you under-funded among the 308 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.
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.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2019–2023), and the filings of 8funders 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