Loading…
Loading…
Arizona · Nonprofit
MESA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (Arizona) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $173,055 in grants to it, the largest being MASTERS OF COIN ($121,538). 2 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
MESA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK has grown faster than half of the 10,742 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 10,742 human services nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2023
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.
87% of MESA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (81% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 6 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $5k → $122k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
From the IRS filings of MESA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
MESA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK leans on a few funders — its largest provides 70% of grant income and the top three 91%; 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% · 2020 100% · 2022 95% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
MESA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK is locally rooted: 88% of its grant income comes from Arizona 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 6 funders put you under-funded among the 400 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.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $250k 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.
89% of spending goes to programs.
100%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
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 FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), 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