Skip to content
Community Action of Nebraska Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Community Action of Nebraska Inc

Community action of nebraska strives to alleviate poverty through enhancing program development, providing technical assistance, and advocating public policy to support all community action agencies in nebraska.

$10k
Granted FY2019
3
Grants FY2019
1
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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 2019.

Human Services$532k
02FY2019 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $2,419, the rows itemized in this filing. The $10,196 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $7,777 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.
$653
Median grant
1
States reached
$186k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BLUE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNRSHIP INC$1,153
CENTRAL NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP$653
NORTHEAST NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP$613
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–19, $129k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BLUE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNRSHIP INC: $42k → 11%SOUTHEAST NEBRASA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP INC: $10k → 13%COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF WESTERN NEBRASKA INC: $46k → 15%BLUE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNRSHIP INC: $8k → 11%COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF WESTERN NEBRASKA INC: $22k → 15%BLUE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNRSHIP INC: $1k → 11%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$522k · 7 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +39% since the first grant, against +32% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2019, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$522k
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+39%
+32%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2019, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19
RenewedFirst-time
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • CA
    COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF LANCASTER AND SAUNDERS COUNTIES
    2× · 2017–2018 · $150k · revenue +69%
  • NN
    NORTHEAST NE COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHI PARTNERSHIP
    5× · 2017–2021 · $90k · revenue +35%
  • CA
    COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF MID-NEBR
    2× · 2017–2018 · $72k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • SN
    SOUTHEAST NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIPgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +32%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Community Action Partnership

Community action partnership provides a range of services, which enable, educate, and assist with self sufficiency, to individuals and communites in western north dakota.

Human Services
2
Community Action of Southeast Iowa

The organization is dedicated to alleviating the conditions and causes of poverty by building partnerships and strengthening people through quality services. community action of southeast iowa administers programs funded or supported by…

—
3
Community Action of Eastern Iowa

Community action of eastern iowa respectfully partners with people to improve their health, finances, and education.

Community Improvement
4
West Central Community Action

In partnership with state and federal government, our mission is to administer programs designed to help residents in our 10-county region of southwest iowa achieve self-sufficiency.

Human Services
5
Northwest Community Action Inc

Our mission is to stimulate a focusing of all available resources upon the goal of enabling area low-income families and individuals of all ages to attain skills, knowledge, and motivations, and secure the opportunities needed for them to…

Human Services
6
Northeast Iowa Community Action Corp

Through dynamic partnerships, quality family services, advocacy and education, neicac advances community development and improves social and economic conditions for individuals and families with limited resources.

Human Services
7
Northeast Missouri Community Action Agency

The northeast missouri community action agency's mission is to assist individuals, families and communities achieve their greatest potential.

—
8
Community Action Region Vi

Community action region vi's mission is to improve the quality of life for low income, elderly, & disabled people in a nine county area, to promote public awareness of the needs and problems faced by these individuals, and to work towards…

Housing & Shelter
9
Community Action Agency Inc

To aid low income families with early education, energy assistance, nutrition help and other services.

Human Services
10
Community Action Partnership - Minot Region

Provide assistance to low income individuals through the community action self sufficiency programs and energy conservation assistance through the agency's weatherization program.

Human Services
11
Community Action for Improvement Inc

The mission of community action for improvement, inc. is to build sustainable communities with partners by providing services and resources utilizing the whole family approach with low-income households to help reduce the burdens of…

—
12
Community Action Agency of Siouxland

Administration of government funded programs

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Action Partnership of Lancaster and Saunders Counties; the most unlike its peers is Blue Valley Community Action Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

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

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
8/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF LANCASTER AND SAUNDERS COUNTIES: $149,713 · OtherCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF LANCASTER AND SAUNDERS COUNTIESNORTHEAST NE COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHI PARTNERSHIP: $89,881 · OtherNORTHEAST NE COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHI PARTNERSHIPCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF MID-NEBR: $72,327 · OtherCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF MID-NEBRNORTHWEST COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $61,613 · OtherNORTHWEST COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIPCENTRAL NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP INC: $29,025 · OtherCENTRAL NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP INCCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF WESTERN NEBRASKA: $68,066 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHI…BLUE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $51,267 · Human ServicesBLUE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTIO…SOUTHEAST NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $9,979 · Human ServicesSOUTHEAST NEBRASKA COMMUNIT…
Other$402,559Human Services$129,312

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF LANCASTER AND SAUNDERS COUNTIES: $149,713 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetNORTHEAST NE COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHI PARTNERSHIP: $89,881 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF MID-NEBR: $72,327 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF WESTERN NEBRASKA: $68,066 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetNORTHWEST COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $61,613 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetBLUE VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $51,267 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetCENTRAL NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP INC: $29,025 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetSOUTHEAST NEBRASKA COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $9,979 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Nebraska Children & F…First Interstate Banc…Amazonsmile Foundation
Nebraska Children & Families FoundationNE13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Nebraska Children & Families Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Community Action of Nebraska Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Community Action of Nebraska Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    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 8 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 2019, released 2019. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2019, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Community Action of Nebraska’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