Loading…
Loading…
West Virginia · Nonprofit
MOUNTAINEER AREA ROBOTICS (West Virginia) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $248,174 in grants to it, the largest being For Inspiration and Recognition of ($185,050). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
MOUNTAINEER AREA ROBOTICS has grown faster than half of the 1,219 youth development nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,219 youth development 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.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 5 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 1 funders to 2 as grant income moved $5k → $32k.
2 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 8% 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 MOUNTAINEER AREA ROBOTICS’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
MOUNTAINEER AREA ROBOTICS leans on a few funders — its largest provides 75% of grant income and the top three 97%; 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% · 2018 83% · 2019 100% · 2020 58% · 2021 89% · 2022 90% · 2023 60% · 2024 68% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
MOUNTAINEER AREA ROBOTICS draws 100% of its grant income from funders outside West Virginia — 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. 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.
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%
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 FY2025 (financials across 2021–2025), 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