Loading…
Loading…
Texas · Nonprofit
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DISASTER (Texas) is funded by 25 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $3,242,353 in grants to it, the largest being CENTER FOR DISASTER PHILANTHROPY INC ($625,000). 11 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DISASTER has grown faster than three-quarters of the 731 public safety & disaster nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 731 public safety & disaster nonprofits $1M–$10M, 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.
99% of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DISASTER’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (71% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $3k → $81k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
9 of 25 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 21% 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 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DISASTER’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 22 of 25 funders by total. Association, not causation.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DISASTER has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 19% of grant income, and it takes 4 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 4 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 100% · 2018 59% · 2019 60% · 2020 81% · 2021 47% · 2022 73% · 2023 35% · 2024 67% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
31% of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DISASTER's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 44% 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.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DISASTER draws 63% of its grant income from funders outside Texas — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 12 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 25 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.
95% of spending goes to programs.
70%
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 25funders 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