Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
WATTS COMMUNITY CORE (California) is funded by 12 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $436,692 in grants to it, the largest being Go Campaign ($302,456). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WATTS COMMUNITY CORE is funded by 12 grantmakers reporting $437k in grants to it.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 6,588 community improvement nonprofits under $100k, FY2019
$5k from 1 funders in 2025, up from $27k and 1 in 2019.
2 of 12 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 5% 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 WATTS COMMUNITY CORE’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 10 of 12 funders by total. Association, not causation.
WATTS COMMUNITY CORE leans on a few funders — its largest provides 69% of grant income and the top three 89%; 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: 2019 100% · 2020 97% · 2021 57% · 2022 100% · 2023 100% · 2024 91% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
14% of WATTS COMMUNITY CORE's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 25% give in more than one year at all.
Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year.
WATTS COMMUNITY CORE is locally rooted: 83% of its grant income comes from California 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 12 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.
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.
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 FY2019 (financials across 2019–2019), and the filings of 12funders 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