Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
MAVEN (California) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $122,089 in grants to it, the largest being NATL CHRISTIAN CHARITABLE FDN INC ($63,086). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
MAVEN has grown faster than half of the 20,012 education nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 20,012 education 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.
48% of MAVEN’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (55% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 1 funders to 3 as grant income moved $10k → $43k.
4 of 6 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 MAVEN’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
MAVEN leans on a few funders — its largest provides 52% 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: 2017 100% · 2020 100% · 2021 57% · 2022 62% · 2023 49% · 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.
MAVEN draws 78% of its grant income from funders outside California — 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. $1k 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.
75% of spending goes to programs.
100%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), 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