Loading…
Loading…
Michigan · Nonprofit
SERVICES TO ENHANCE POTENTIAL (Michigan) is funded by 7 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $200,741 in grants to it, the largest being FLAGSTAR FOUNDATION INC ($61,500). 2 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
SERVICES TO ENHANCE POTENTIAL holds deeper cash reserves than three-quarters of the 2,461 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,461 human services 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.
14% of SERVICES TO ENHANCE POTENTIAL’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (21% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 1 funders to 5 as grant income moved $2k → $63k.
2 of 7 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 33% 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 SERVICES TO ENHANCE POTENTIAL’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
SERVICES TO ENHANCE POTENTIAL leans on a few funders — its largest provides 31% of grant income and the top three 87%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2019 100% · 2020 87% · 2021 100% · 2023 60% · 2024 40% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
SERVICES TO ENHANCE POTENTIAL is locally rooted: 64% of its grant income comes from Michigan 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 7 funders put you under-funded among the 400 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. $995k 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.
87% of spending goes to programs.
92%
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 2018–2024), 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