Skip to content
Effingham Regional Growth Alliance at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Effingham Regional Growth Alliance

Promote the development, establishment, expansion, and retention of industries, improve business conditions for industry, preserve and expand availability of employment, and encourage the general economic growth and development of business, industrial and other supporting services to improve the quality of living, all within the region…

$65k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$34k
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, FY2021 to 2024.

Community Improvement$339k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $53,685, the rows itemized in this filing. The $65,373 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $11,688 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $47k
$12,754
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$34,295
COLES TOGETHER$12,754
CRAWFORD COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC$6,636
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 (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 51% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%CITY OF EFFINGHAM: $100k → 9%SULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $34k → 10%CRAWFORD COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC: $19k → 12%PARIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $11k → 14%COLES TOGETHER: $35k → 18%SULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $14k → 10%CRAWFORD COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC: $18k → 12%PARIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $9k → 14%COLES TOGETHER: $26k → 18%SULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $12k → 10%CRAWFORD COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC: $7k → 12%PARIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $9k → 14%COLES TOGETHER: $21k → 18%SULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $5k → 10%CRAWFORD COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOC: $6k → 12%COLES TOGETHER: $13k → 18%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

3 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. 3 of the 5 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
3/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF EFFINGHAM: $100,000 · OtherCITY OF EFFINGHAMCOLES TOGETHER: $94,491 · OtherCOLES TOGETHERSULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $65,582 · OtherSULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTPARIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $29,134 · OtherPARIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONCrawford County Development Association: $50,155 · Community ImprovementCrawford County …
Other$289,207Community Improvement$50,155

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOLES TOGETHER: $94,491 over 4y, 7.1% of budgetSULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $65,582 over 4y, 14% of budgetCrawford County Development Association: $50,155 over 4y, 9.7% 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 COLES TOGETHER ↗
  • Who funds SULLIVAN CHAMBER & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds Crawford County Development Association ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 5 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2024, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Effingham Regional Growth Alliance’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