Loading…
Loading…
Texas · Nonprofit
ORANGE CHRISTIAN SERVICES INC (Texas) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $275,710 in grants to it, the largest being H H AND EDNA HOUSEMAN CHARITABLE TR ($160,000). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
ORANGE CHRISTIAN SERVICES INC is better cushioned than half of the 20,275 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 20,275 human services 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.
93% of ORANGE CHRISTIAN SERVICES INC’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (87% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 5 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $6k → $15k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
From the IRS filings of ORANGE CHRISTIAN SERVICES INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
ORANGE CHRISTIAN SERVICES INC leans on a few funders — its largest provides 58% of grant income and the top three 87%; 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 91% · 2018 64% · 2019 64% · 2020 54% · 2021 73% · 2022 100% · 2023 57% · 2024 100% · 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.
ORANGE CHRISTIAN SERVICES INC draws 60% of its grant income from funders outside Texas — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 3 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.
92% of spending goes to programs.
100%
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 2017–2024), 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