Skip to content
Cooperative Energy at a glance

· Public charity

Cooperative Energy

Provide and transmit through generation and purchase of electricity, wholesale electricity to 11 member owned cooperatives, each serving retail consumers.

$169k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
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 2024.

Community Improvement$2.5MEducation$75k
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k6 grants · $119k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.3B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS$50,000
PIKE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$31,000
PEARL RIVER COUNTY$25,000
SIPCAM AGRO SOLUTIONS$25,000
GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS$15,000
MARION COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP$12,500
GREENWOOD LEFLORE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$10,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 26%, against an area that typically sits at 19%. 74% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 19%HANCOCK COUNTY PORT & HARBOR COMMISSION: $25k → 15%JACKSON CO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $26k → 16%PEARL RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $50k → 18%CARPENTER POLE AND PILING: $25k → 18%HATTIESBURG LAUREL AIRPORT: $50k → 18%WALTHALL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: $20k → 19%GULF COAST BUSINESS COUNCIL: $25k → 19%MARION COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP INC: $25k → 21%AREA DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $32k → 22%UNIVERSITY OF MS MEDICAL CENTER: $25k → 23%GREENE COUNTY: $25k → 23%SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: $50k → 23%CITY OF WINONA: $25k → 24%MTK'S CAMP KAMASSA: $241k → 26%PIKE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOP: $50k → 26%SIPCAM AGRO SOLUTIONS: $25k → 26%DELTA COUNCIL: $50k → 27%CLEVELAND-BOLIVAR CO CHAMBER: $15k → 29%NETTERVILLE LUMBER: $25k → 31%CLAIBORNE CO PORT COMMISSION: $18k → 33%SOUTHWEST MISS ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION: $604k → 34%GREENWOOD LEFLORE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $10k → 34%UPLINK LLC: $50k → 36%HANCOCK COUNTY PORT & HARBOR COMMISSION: $15k → 15%PEARL RIVER COUNTY: $25k → 18%ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF JONES COUNTY: $100k → 18%HARRISON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: $10k → 19%MARION COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $13k → 21%AREA DEV PARTNERSHIP: $25k → 22%GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: $15k → 23%MONTGOMERY COUNTY: $25k → 24%CAMP KAMASA - MS STRONGEST KIDS: $50k → 26%PIKE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $31k → 26%SOUTH DELTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT: $25k → 27%ECO DEV AUTHORITY OF COAHOMA: $50k → 36%PEARL RIVER COUNTY: $25k → 18%EDA OF JONES CO: $50k → 18%HARRISON CO DEV COMMISSION: $10k → 19%AREA DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $20k → 22%GREENE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: $15k → 23%SCENIC RIVERS DEVELOPMENT ALLI: $25k → 26%CITY OF DIAMONDHEAD MS: $25k → 15%PEARL RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE: $25k → 18%ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF JONES COUNTY: $50k → 18%AREA DEV PARTNERSHIP: $20k → 22%PEARL RIVER COUNTY: $10k → 18%ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF JONES COUNTY: $50k → 18%AREA DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $10k → 22%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.

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 14 repeat orgs$1.3M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +65% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
21

Total granted

$1.3M
$1.2M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+65%
+12%

Still filing today

50%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementRecreation & SportsEducationHuman ServicesOther
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

  • AD
    Area Development Partnership Inc
    4× · 2017–2023 · $107k · revenue +29%
  • PR
    PEARL RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMEN
    2× · 2019–2023 · $75k · revenue +65%
  • GL
    GREENWOOD LEFLORE-CARROLL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2018–2024 · $64k · revenue +331%

Funded once

  • SM
    SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2022 · $604k · revenue +12%
  • DC
    DELTA COUNCIL
    one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +12%
  • UL
    UPLINK LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $50k
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
East Mississippi Development Corporation Meridian Community College
—
2
North Missindustrial Development a

Promoting northeast mississippi for industrial growth.

—
3
Fort Madison Economic Development Corp

Promotion of area enconomic development.

Community Improvement
4
Tangipahoa Economic Development Foundation Inc

To promote our local area to new industry and to recruit new industry to our local area

Community Improvement
5
Jackson County Economic Alliance

To bring economic development to its fullest potential, for job growth in jackson county, as well as develop a strong core of resources for the future.

Community Improvement
6
Rolla Regional Economic Commission

To facilitate development of long-term diversified business and employment opportunities in Rolla, MO, Phelps County and the surrounding areas.

Community Improvement
7
Monroe Chamber of Commerce

The monroe chamber of commerce is the premier member-driven business league in the city of monroe. the mcc works on behalf of private-sector business and the community to develop partnerships; support prosperous conditions for business and…

—
8
Muskegon Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce

Member programs/services, economic development

—
9
Ellsworth County Economic Development Corporation

Ellsworth county economic development is improving the lives of citizens of ellsworth county through recruitment, retention, and expansion of goods and services offered in ellsworth county.

—
10
Kentucky Industrial Development Council

Development and educational opportunities to promote industrial and economic development in kentucky.

Community Improvement
11
Noble County Economic Development Corporation

To provide coordinated economic development resources promoting the assets of noble county.

Community Improvement
12
Sarpy County Economic Development Corp

Assist with business development

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is North Central Planning and Developm District Inc; the most unlike its peers is Mississippi's Toughest Kids Foundation. 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

16 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. 16 of the 37 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
11/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION: $604,416 · OtherSOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATIONECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF JONES COUNTY: $267,500 · OtherECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF JONES COUNTYArea Development Partnership Inc: $107,000 · OtherArea Development Partnership IncPIKE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOP: $81,000 · OtherECO DEV AUTHORITY OF COAHOMA: $75,000 · Other+23 more: $800,417 · Other+23 moreMISSISSIPPI'S TOUGHEST KIDS FOUNDATION: $290,785 · Recreation & SportsMISSISSIPPI'…JACKSON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC: $76,400 · Community ImprovementJACKSON COU…MARION COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP INC: $62,500 · Community ImprovementMARION COUN…ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementECONOMIC DE…NATCHEZ INC: $25,000 · Community ImprovementNATCHEZ INCGULF COAST BUSINESS COUNCIL: $25,000 · Community ImprovementGULF COAST …STONE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PTR: $25,000 · Community ImprovementSTONE COUNT…PEARL RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMEN: $75,000 · EducationNORTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPM DISTRICT INC: $25,000 · Human Services
Other$1,935,333Recreation & Sports$290,785Community Improvement$263,900Education$75,000Human Services$25,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION: $604,416 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetMISSISSIPPI'S TOUGHEST KIDS FOUNDATION: $290,785 over 2y, 8.7% of budgetArea Development Partnership Inc: $107,000 over 4y, 2.1% of budgetJACKSON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC: $76,400 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetPEARL RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMEN: $75,000 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetGREENWOOD LEFLORE-CARROLL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC: $64,167 over 3y, 23% of budgetMARION COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP INC: $62,500 over 3y, 17% of budgetECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $50,000 over 2y, 4.3% of budgetDELTA COUNCIL: $50,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetNATCHEZ INC: $25,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetSOUTH DELTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGULF COAST BUSINESS COUNCIL: $25,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetNORTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPM DISTRICT INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCLEVELAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $15,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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 SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds MISSISSIPPI'S TOUGHEST KIDS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Area Development Partnership Inc ↗
  • Who funds JACKSON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PEARL RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMEN ↗
  • Who funds GREENWOOD LEFLORE-CARROLL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds MARION COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP INC ↗
  • Who funds ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds DELTA COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds DIXIE ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds NATCHEZ INC ↗
  • Who funds SOUTH DELTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ↗
  • Who funds GULF COAST BUSINESS COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds STONE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PTR ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPM DISTRICT INC ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 37 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Cooperative Energy’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