Loading…
Loading…
Utah · Nonprofit
TAG RANCH INC (Utah) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $406,350 in grants to it, the largest being DEVER FAMILY FOUNDATION ($302,000). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
TAG RANCH INC has grown faster than half of the 5,357 youth development nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 5,357 youth development 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.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
100% of TAG RANCH INC’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (82% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $17k → $183k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
From the IRS filings of TAG RANCH INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
TAG RANCH INC leans on a few funders — its largest provides 74% of grant income and the top three 96%; 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: 2017 59% · 2018 75% · 2019 81% · 2020 100% · 2021 76% · 2022 83% · 2023 73% · 2024 87% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
TAG RANCH INC draws 96% of its grant income from funders outside Utah — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 3 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.
64% 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 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