Skip to content
Greater Baton Rouge Economic Partnership Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Greater Baton Rouge Economic Partnership Inc

To benefit and increase the quality of life of the general public in and around the baton rouge area by promoting and supporting activities and functions that attract business, educate the public, and create jobs that otherwise tend to increase economic growth and development in the region.

$40k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$13k
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Community Improvement$140kEducation$35kPublic Benefit$27kYouth Development$13k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $26,467, the rows itemized in this filing. The $39,893 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $13,426 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 $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
$6,884
Median grant
1
States reached
$12M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$13,333
WEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$6,884
ASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION$6,250
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 (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%ASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $13k → 10%WEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $13k → 12%LIVINGSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $20k → 13%POINTE COUPEE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $12k → 17%IBERVILLE PARISH GOVERNMENT: $13k → 19%WEST FELICIANA PARISH GOVERNMENT: $14k → 20%ASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $13k → 10%WEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10k → 12%LIVINGSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $13k → 13%GREATER POINTE COUPEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $5k → 17%SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FOUNDATION OFFICE OF RESEARCH: $25k → 19%WEST FELICIANA PARISH GOVERNMENT: $13k → 20%ASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $13k → 10%WEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $7k → 12%LIVINGSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $6k → 13%SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FOUNDATION: $10k → 19%ASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $6k → 10%WEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $6k → 12%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.

78%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$167k · 5 repeat orgs$48k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +44% since the first grant, against +23% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
1

Total granted

$167k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
+23%

Still filing today

60%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 50% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementEducationOther
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

  • AE
    ASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
    4× · 2020–2024 · $46k
  • LE
    LIVINGSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    3× · 2020–2023 · $40k · revenue +44%
  • WB
    WEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    4× · 2020–2024 · $36k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • SOUTHERN UNIVERTY SYSTEM
    one grant, 2022 · $35k · revenue +23%
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
04the grantee network

5 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. 5 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/5
Grantees still filing
3/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LIVINGSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $40,214 · OtherLIVINGSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILWEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $36,115 · OtherWEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCEWEST FELICIANA PARISH GOVERNMENT: $27,104 · OtherWEST FELICIANA PARISH GOVERNMENTGREATER POINTE COUPEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $17,000 · OtherGREATER POINTE COUPEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCEIndividual grant recipient: $13,333 · OtherIndividual grant recipientASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION: $46,249 · Community ImprovementASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVEL…SOUTHERN UNIVERTY SYSTEM: $35,000 · EducationSOUTHERN UNIVERTY …
Other$133,766Community Improvement$46,249Education$35,000

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 budgetLIVINGSTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $40,214 over 3y, 3.3% of budgetWEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $36,115 over 4y, 5.8% of budgetSOUTHERN UNIVERTY SYSTEM: $35,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGREATER POINTE COUPEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $17,000 over 2y, 10% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Greater Baton Rouge Economic Partnership Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Greater Baton Rouge Economic Partnership Inc. 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
    1report 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 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Greater Baton Rouge Economic Partnership’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