Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
JOHN MUIR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH (California) is funded by 3 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $88,022,919 in grants to it, the largest being JOHN MUIR HEALTH ($81,768,940). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
JOHN MUIR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH's funding has concentrated — grant income rose while the number of funders held roughly flat.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 3,322 health nonprofits $10M–$100M, 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.
22% of JOHN MUIR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (7% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $6.1M → $16M on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
From the IRS filings of JOHN MUIR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
JOHN MUIR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH leans on a few funders — its largest provides 93% of grant income and the top three 100%; 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 97% · 2018 95% · 2019 95% · 2020 98% · 2021 94% · 2022 98% · 2023 100% · 2024 74% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
JOHN MUIR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH is locally rooted: 100% 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.
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. $14 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.
58% of spending goes to programs.
Operates in 1 state
Part of a family of 7 related entities
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 3funders 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