Loading…
Loading…
Minnesota · Nonprofit
WOODLAND CENTERS (Minnesota) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $153,048 in grants to it, the largest being COMMUNITYGIVING ($70,538). 2 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WOODLAND CENTERS has grown faster than half of the 3,322 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 3,322 health 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.
11% of WOODLAND CENTERS’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (7% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $10 → $16k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
2 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 47% 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 WOODLAND CENTERS’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
WOODLAND CENTERS leans on a few funders — its largest provides 46% of grant income and the top three 86%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 100% · 2020 73% · 2021 51% · 2022 98% · 2023 100% · 2024 67% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
WOODLAND CENTERS is locally rooted: 99% of its grant income comes from Minnesota 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 6 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.
80% of spending goes to programs.
84%
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