Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
Neurolab 360 (California) is funded by 16 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $726,234 in grants to it, the largest being THE LISA & STEVE ALTMAN FAMILY ($407,357). 7 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Neurolab 360 has grown faster than three-quarters of the 12,769 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 12,769 health 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.
100% of Neurolab 360’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (78% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 4 reported years ran a deficit.
$16k from 1 funders in 2025, up from $205k and 2 in 2021.
8 of 16 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 29% 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 Neurolab 360’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Neurolab 360 leans on a few funders — its largest provides 56% of grant income and the top three 71%; 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: 2021 98% · 2022 53% · 2023 31% · 2024 45% · 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.
10% of Neurolab 360's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 44% 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.
Neurolab 360 is locally rooted: 63% of its grant income comes from California 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 16 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.
0% of spending goes to programs.
0%
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 FY2024 (financials across 2021–2024), and the filings of 16funders 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