Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
Protect Our Healthcare (California) is funded by 7 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $28,282,000 in grants to it, the largest being California Hospitals Committee on Issues ($15,800,000). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Protect Our Healthcare has grown faster than three-quarters of the 239 public benefit nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 239 public benefit nonprofits $10M–$100M, 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 Protect Our Healthcare’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (10% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 2 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 3 funders to 5 as grant income moved $2.1M → $26M.
From the IRS filings of Protect Our Healthcare’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Protect Our Healthcare leans on a few funders — its largest provides 56% of grant income and the top three 98%; 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: 2023 95% · 2024 53% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
Protect Our Healthcare is locally rooted: 100% 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.
99% of spending goes to programs.
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 2023–2024), and the filings of 7funders 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