Loading…
Loading…
Missouri · Nonprofit
JEREMIAH PROJECT (Missouri) is funded by 5 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $120,127 in grants to it, the largest being BNY MELLON CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ($96,800). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
JEREMIAH PROJECT has grown faster than half of the 2,868 international nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,868 international nonprofits under $100k, 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.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $2k → $18k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
4 of 5 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 94% 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 JEREMIAH PROJECT’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
JEREMIAH PROJECT leans on a few funders — its largest provides 81% of grant income and the top three 95%; 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 100% · 2018 74% · 2019 47% · 2020 100% · 2021 99% · 2022 100% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
JEREMIAH PROJECT draws 94% of its grant income from funders outside Missouri — 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.
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. $957 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.
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 5funders 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