Loading…
Loading…
Florida · Nonprofit
KIDDY UP RANCH INC (Florida) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $29,592 in grants to it, the largest being Network for Good ($11,011). 2 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
KIDDY UP RANCH INC 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.
13% of KIDDY UP RANCH INC’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. 5 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $3k → $5k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
3 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 61% 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 KIDDY UP RANCH INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
KIDDY UP RANCH INC leans on a few funders — its largest provides 37% of grant income and the top three 81%; 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: 2020 98% · 2021 85% · 2022 55% · 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.
KIDDY UP RANCH INC draws 83% of its grant income from funders outside Florida — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 6 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. $325 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.
91% of spending goes to programs.
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 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