Loading…
Loading…
Ohio · Nonprofit
SOJOURNERS CARE NETWORK (Ohio) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $227,022 in grants to it, the largest being Ohio Children's Alliance ($125,022). 4 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
SOJOURNERS CARE NETWORK has grown faster than half of the 1,593 human services nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,593 human services nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2025
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.
1% of SOJOURNERS CARE NETWORK’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (81% 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 $33k → $109k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
2 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 21% 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 SOJOURNERS CARE NETWORK’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
SOJOURNERS CARE NETWORK leans on a few funders — its largest provides 55% of grant income and the top three 91%; 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: 2020 34% · 2021 73% · 2022 50% · 2023 52% · 2024 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
SOJOURNERS CARE NETWORK is locally rooted: 98% of its grant income comes from Ohio 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 6 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. $8.9M 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.
90% 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 FY2025 (financials across 2018–2025), and the filings of 6funders 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