Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
PREGNANCY HELP CENTER (California) is funded by 22 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $502,401 in grants to it, the largest being FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ($86,087). 14 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
PREGNANCY HELP CENTER runs a healthier operating margin than half of the 8,739 religion nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 8,739 religion nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2020
Grant income rose $500 → $26k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
10 of 22 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 70% 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 PREGNANCY HELP CENTER’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
PREGNANCY HELP CENTER has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 17% of grant income, and it takes 4 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 4 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 100% · 2018 64% · 2019 57% · 2020 26% · 2021 32% · 2022 28% · 2023 18% · 2024 45% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
30% of PREGNANCY HELP CENTER's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 64% 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.
PREGNANCY HELP CENTER draws 70% of its grant income from funders outside California — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 12 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 22 funders put you under-funded among the 302 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.
73% 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 FY2020 (financials across 2020–2020), and the filings of 22funders 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