· Public charity
Elevate Rapid City
Elevate the rapid city region for all.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 9 grants below total $471,386 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $857,836 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $386,450 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k6 grants · $169k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $303k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SOUTH DAKOTA ELLSWORTH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY | $201,004 |
| PHASE TECHNOLOGIES | $51,800 |
| RURAL AMERICA INITIATIVES | $50,000 |
| LIL PUNKINS DAYCARE | $49,874 |
| YMCA OF RAPID CITY | $49,686 |
| BLACK HILLS BEHAVIOR LLC | $30,126 |
| WESTERN DAKOTA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL FOUNDATION INC | $18,775 |
| BLACK HILLS STATE UNIVERSITY | $10,121 |
| MAIN STREET SQUARE | $10,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY24–24, $50k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +28% since the first grant, against +19% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $180k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- SDSOUTH DAKOTA ELLSWORTH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY5× · 2020–2024 · $901k
- PTPHASE TECHNOLOGIES2× · 2023–2024 · $162k
- MSMAIN STREET SQUARE3× · 2022–2024 · $37k · revenue +11%
Funded once
- VRVISIT RAPID CITYgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $142k · revenue +158%
- UWUNITED WAY OF THE BLACK HILLSone grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue -28%
- WDWESTERN DAKOTA REGIONAL WATER SYSTEMone grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue -11%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To serve the rural electric cooperatives in south dakota, to promote the effective development of rural electrification in south dakota on a cooperative, non-profit basis.
Health care services for the people of western nebraska and eastern wyoming.
Economic development in the watertown, south dakota area.
To effectively and efficiently mitigate risks to the reliability and security of the western interconnection's bulk power system.
Community and economic development
The Dubuque Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) will lead tourism destination promotion and development to enhance and expand the Dubuque Area experience.
Midwest dairy works with others to give consumers an excellent dairy experience increasing sales, fostering innovation, and inspiring consumer confidence of dairy products and practices.
Downtown Sioux Falls boldly leads the downtown community by championing diverse experiences, economic growth, and a healthy environment.
Elevate the rapid city region for all.
The association of washington cities builds connections between our state's diverse cities and towns, while providing our members with the support needed to thrive through delivery of data-driven education, nationally recognized pooling…
Unite realtor boards to be able to influence matters affecting real estate state wide, unify laws and regulations and promote education among members
To drive economic growth and community advancement in the wichita region.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Black Hills Area Community Foundation and the most unlike its peers is South Dakota Trade Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 10 of the 23 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds BLACK HILLS AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds VISIT RAPID CITY ↗
- Who funds RURAL AMERICA INITIATIVES ↗
- Who funds RAPID CITY Y M C A ↗
- Who funds MAIN STREET SQUARE ↗
- Who funds WESTERN DAKOTA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF THE BLACK HILLS ↗
- Who funds WESTERN DAKOTA REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ↗
- Who funds South Dakota Trade Association ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: South Dakota Community Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Gwendolyn L Stearns Foundation Inc · John T Vucurevich Foundation · Black Hills Area Community Foundation · American Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Elevate Rapid City funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.