Loading…
Loading…
Michigan · Nonprofit
Women for Humanity (Michigan) is funded by 15 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $312,316 in grants to it, the largest being Syrian American Medical Society ($85,962). 13 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
Women for Humanity is better cushioned than half of the 4,380 international nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 4,380 international 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.
107% of Women for Humanity’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (100% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 5 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $15k → $65k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
From the IRS filings of Women for Humanity’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
Women for Humanity has a broad base — no single funder exceeds 28% of grant income, and it takes 3 funders to reach half.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 3 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 34% · 2018 26% · 2019 20% · 2020 17% · 2021 35% · 2022 36% · 2023 56% · 2024 70% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
36% of Women for Humanity's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 87% 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.
Women for Humanity is locally rooted: 72% of its grant income comes from Michigan 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 15 funders put you typical among the 131 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% 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 2020–2024), and the filings of 15funders 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