Loading…
Loading…
Colorado · Nonprofit
MARRIAGE MISSIONARIES (Colorado) is funded by 7 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $153,970 in grants to it, the largest being The Catholic Foundation No Colorado ($102,750). 5 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
MARRIAGE MISSIONARIES is better cushioned than half of the 4,442 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 4,442 human services nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2025
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.
98% of MARRIAGE MISSIONARIES’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (87% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 5 of the last 9 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 1 funders to 3 as grant income moved $11k → $47k.
4 of 7 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 78% 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 MARRIAGE MISSIONARIES’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
MARRIAGE MISSIONARIES leans on a few funders — its largest provides 67% of grant income and the top three 88%; 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 70% · 2020 79% · 2021 85% · 2022 84% · 2023 56% · 2024 47% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
MARRIAGE MISSIONARIES is locally rooted: 73% of its grant income comes from Colorado 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. Your 7 funders put you under-funded among the 381 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.
100% of spending goes to programs.
99%
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 FY2025 (financials across 2017–2025), and the filings of 7funders 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