Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
QUICKSILVER SWIMMING (California) is funded by 7 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $257,046 in grants to it, the largest being AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ($145,652). 5 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
QUICKSILVER SWIMMING has grown faster than half of the 2,451 recreation & sports nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,451 recreation & sports 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.
4% of QUICKSILVER SWIMMING’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (13% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $12k → $21k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
2 of 7 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 57% 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 QUICKSILVER SWIMMING’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
QUICKSILVER SWIMMING leans on a few funders — its largest provides 57% of grant income and the top three 97%; 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: 2019 90% · 2020 75% · 2021 57% · 2022 74% · 2023 70% · 2024 79% · 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.
QUICKSILVER SWIMMING draws 62% of its grant income from funders outside California — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 5 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.
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.
100% of spending goes to programs.
100%
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 2017–2024), 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