Loading…
Loading…
Missouri · Nonprofit
SPIRE CHAMBER ENSEMBLE (Missouri) is funded by 7 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $198,375 in grants to it, the largest being MURIEL MCBRIEN KAUFFMAN FOUNDATION ($64,875). 6 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
SPIRE CHAMBER ENSEMBLE's funding base is broadening — from 1 funders to 5 as grant income climbed.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 16,477 arts & culture nonprofits $100k–$1M, 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.
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 3 reported years ran a deficit.
The base broadened — 1 funders to 5 as grant income moved $7k → $51k.
1 of 7 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 23% 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 SPIRE CHAMBER ENSEMBLE’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
SPIRE CHAMBER ENSEMBLE leans on a few funders — its largest provides 33% of grant income and the top three 71%; 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: 2017 100% · 2019 100% · 2020 50% · 2021 74% · 2022 51% · 2023 38% · 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.
SPIRE CHAMBER ENSEMBLE is locally rooted: 85% of its grant income comes from Missouri 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. $70k 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.
0%
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 2022–2024), 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