Loading…
Loading…
Pennsylvania · Nonprofit
VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES INC (Pennsylvania) is funded by 8 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $2,529,646 in grants to it, the largest being FITCH FOR SEWICKLEY VALLEY HOSPITAL ($1,297,248). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES INC is better cushioned than half of the 1,976 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,976 health nonprofits over $100M, FY2023
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.
5% of VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES INC’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (1% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$225k from 4 funders in 2024, up from $1.2M and 4 in 2017.
From the IRS filings of VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 7 of 8 funders by total. Association, not causation.
VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES INC leans on a few funders — its largest provides 51% of grant income and the top three 94%; 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 77% · 2018 93% · 2019 100% · 2020 89% · 2021 96% · 2022 92% · 2023 97% · 2024 67% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES INC is locally rooted: 97% of its grant income comes from Pennsylvania 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.
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.
86% of spending goes to programs.
Part of a family of 12 related entities
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), and the filings of 8funders 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