Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
WORLDHARVEST (California) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $276,811 in grants to it, the largest being AMERICAN ONLINE GIVING FOUNDATION INC ($159,588). 3 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WORLDHARVEST has grown faster than half of the 325 religion nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 325 religion nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2025
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.
98% of WORLDHARVEST’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (90% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 9 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $21k → $42k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
3 of 4 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 95% 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 WORLDHARVEST’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
WORLDHARVEST leans on a few funders — its largest provides 58% of grant income and the top three 99%; 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: 2020 73% · 2021 53% · 2022 74% · 2023 55% · 2024 100% · 2025 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
WORLDHARVEST draws 100% of its grant income from funders outside California — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 4 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.
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.
77% of spending goes to programs.
88%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2025 (financials across 2017–2025), and the filings of 4funders 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