Skip to content
Bismarck-Mandan Development Association at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Bismarck-Mandan Development Association

The purpose of the Association is to assist and promote the development of commerce in the cities of Bismarck and Mandan and Burleigh and Morton counties and to carry out activities which will enhance the image and reputation of Bismarck and Mandan as a place to live and invest.

$194k
Granted FY2018
5
Grants FY2018
2
States reached
$127k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Employment$210kHealth$15kFood & Nutrition$14kArts & Culture$10kScience & Tech$10k
02FY2018 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $183,984, the rows itemized in this filing. The $193,735 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,751 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2018

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $47k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $127k
$13,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Dakota Prairie Refining LLC$126,864
Menard's Inc$33,514
Pulse USA$13,500
NISC$5,106
DisruptWell Summit$5,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–18) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Menard's Inc: $45k → 12%Dakota Prairie Refining LLC: $127k → 10%City of New Salem: $10k → 10%Menard's Inc: $34k → 12%DisruptWell Summit: $5k → 10%NISC: $5k → 10%DisruptWell Summit: $5k → 10%Pulse USA: $14k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field
04the grantee network

1 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2019.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2019, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1 of the 7 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
0/1
Grantees still filing
0/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Dakota Prairie Refining LLC: $126,864 · OtherDakota Prairie Refining LLCMENARDS: $78,430 · OtherMENARDSBank of ND: $15,000 · OtherBank of NDPulse USA: $13,500 · OtherCITY OF NEW SALEM: $10,000 · OtherDISRUPTWELL SUMMIT: $10,000 · Other+1 more: $5,106 · Other
Other$258,900

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDISRUPTWELL SUMMIT: $10,000 over 2y, 8.4% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds DISRUPTWELL SUMMIT ↗

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 7 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Bismarck-Mandan Development Association’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home