Loading…
Loading…
Washington, D.C. · Nonprofit
WOOD PRODUCTS COUNCIL (Washington, D.C.) is funded by 2 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $802,984 in grants to it, the largest being United States Endowment for Forestry ($727,984). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WOOD PRODUCTS COUNCIL runs a healthier operating margin than half of the 570 community improvement nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 570 community improvement nonprofits $10M–$100M, 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.
97% of WOOD PRODUCTS COUNCIL’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (66% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 0 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
$102k from 1 funders in 2021, up from $184k and 2 in 2019.
From the IRS filings of WOOD PRODUCTS COUNCIL’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
WOOD PRODUCTS COUNCIL leans on a few funders — its largest provides 91% of grant income and the top three 100%; 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 59% · 2020 100% · 2021 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
WOOD PRODUCTS COUNCIL draws 100% of its grant income from funders outside Washington, D.C. — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 2 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. Your 2 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. $25.1M 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.
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 2funders 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