Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
PACIFIC LODGE YOUTH SERVICES (California) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $84,500 in grants to it, the largest being MILO BEKINS FOUNDATION ($80,000). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
PACIFIC LODGE YOUTH SERVICES is better cushioned than half of the 14,240 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 14,240 human services nonprofits under $100k, 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.
0% of PACIFIC LODGE YOUTH SERVICES’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (93% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$500 from 1 funders in 2022, up from $22k and 3 in 2017.
From the IRS filings of PACIFIC LODGE YOUTH SERVICES’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 3 of 4 funders by total. Association, not causation.
PACIFIC LODGE YOUTH SERVICES leans on a few funders — its largest provides 95% of grant income and the top three 100%; 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 98% · 2019 98% · 2020 98% · 2021 100% · 2022 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
PACIFIC LODGE YOUTH SERVICES is locally rooted: 96% 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.
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.
99%
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 FY2024 (financials across 2019–2024), and the filings of 4funders 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