Loading…
Loading…
Arizona · Nonprofit
Hoofbeats With Heart (Arizona) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $33,456 in grants to it, the largest being CHRISTOPHER REEVE FOUNDATION ($21,330). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Hoofbeats With Heart has grown faster than half of the 20,275 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 20,275 human services 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.
7% of Hoofbeats With Heart’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (87% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 8 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
$678 from 2 funders in 2023, up from $10k and 1 in 2018.
1 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 1% 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 Hoofbeats With Heart’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Hoofbeats With Heart leans on a few funders — its largest provides 64% of grant income and the top three 97%; 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: 2018 100% · 2019 99% · 2020 100% · 2021 96% · 2022 100% · 2023 74% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Hoofbeats With Heart draws 69% of its grant income from funders outside Arizona — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 5 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. Your 6 funders put you under-funded 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.
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.
82% of spending goes to programs.
0%
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