Loading…
Loading…
Washington, D.C. · Nonprofit
NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR (Washington, D.C.) is funded by 91 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $18,121,150 in grants to it, the largest being The Chicago Community Trust ($3,000,000). 69 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
$5k from 1 funders in 2025, up from $906k and 15 in 2017.
13 of 91 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 26% 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 NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 91 funders by total. Association, not causation.
NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 17% of grant income, and it takes 6 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 6 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 55% · 2018 54% · 2019 11% · 2020 8% · 2021 55% · 2022 10% · 2023 26% · 2024 11% · 2025 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
53% of NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 76% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year.
NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR draws 99% of its grant income from funders outside Washington, D.C. — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 23 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 91 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.
85% of spending goes to programs.
86%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 37 states
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 91funders 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