Loading…
Loading…
Alabama · Nonprofit
POSITIVE MATURITY INC (Alabama) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $4,913,879 in grants to it, the largest being UNITED WAY OF CENTRAL ALABAMA INC ($4,903,717). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
POSITIVE MATURITY INC is better cushioned than half of the 9,516 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 9,516 human services nonprofits $1M–$10M, 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.
95% of POSITIVE MATURITY INC’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (81% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 0 of the last 5 reported years ran a deficit.
$588k from 1 funders in 2024, up from $667k and 2 in 2017.
2 of 4 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 0% 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 POSITIVE MATURITY INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
POSITIVE MATURITY INC leans on a few funders — its largest provides 100% 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 99% · 2018 99% · 2019 100% · 2020 100% · 2021 100% · 2022 100% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
POSITIVE MATURITY INC is locally rooted: 100% of its grant income comes from Alabama 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 4 funders put you under-funded among the 376 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.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $7.2M on record.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
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.
79% of spending goes to programs.
99%
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 2020–2024), 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