Skip to content
Mitchell County Development Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Mitchell County Development Foundation

To promote in the economic development of local mitchell county communities

$1.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
40
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 40 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 40 grants below total $1,180,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,273,700 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $93,200 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k8 grants · $47k
  • $10k–50k19 grants · $419k
  • $50k–250k13 grants · $715k
$22,300
Median grant
2
States reached
$748k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HARDINGS LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCEIN$60,000
MORGAN OIL COMPANY$60,000
GEM CITY$60,000
DT NIVEN ENTERPRISES INC$60,000
HEFS INC$60,000
LYNN PETERSON STORE$60,000
NIVEN PROPERTIES INC$55,000
LOS GARCIA INC$50,000
D & S PROPANE LLC$50,000
LONG RANGE BALLISTICS$50,000
BLUE RIDGE OUTDOOR ADVENTURES$50,000
YOUNGS FUEL$50,000
STYLES OFFICE BUILDING$50,000
RIDDLE FINANCIAL SOLUTION$42,000
H & B CONTRACTING$35,000
02The need
02

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 (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 98% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%SUBLIMATION STUDIO: $22k → 14%LOS GARCIA INC: $50k → 15%LYNN PETERSON STORE: $60k → 15%MORGAN OIL COMPANY: $60k → 16%EMERALD VILLAGE INC: $16k → 16%RENTALS OF SPRUCE PINE: $30k → 16%H & B CONTRACTING: $35k → 15%YOUNGS FUEL: $50k → 16%STYLES OFFICE BUILDING: $50k → 15%D & S PROPANE LLC: $50k → 16%LONG RANGE BALLISTICS: $50k → 16%BLUE RIDGE OUTDOOR ADVENTURES: $50k → 16%HOPSONS COUNTRY STORE: $35k → 16%SPRUCE PINE FLORIST: $22k → 16%RED HILL GROCERY: $20k → 16%LIVING WATERS CAMPGROUND: $20k → 16%BONNIE & CLYDES DRIVE IN: $20k → 16%NC OUTDOOR ADVENTURES: $15k → 16%BAKERSVILLE COMPUTER REPAIR: $5k → 16%MICA GALLERY: $5k → 16%BAKERSVILLE AUTO CARE: $5k → 16%ALPINE REAL ESTATE COMPANY: $5k → 16%HEFS INC: $60k → 16%GEM CITY: $60k → 16%DT NIVEN ENTERPRISES INC: $60k → 16%HARDINGS LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCEIN: $60k → 16%NIVEN PROPERTIES INC: $55k → 16%RIDDLE FINANCIAL SOLUTION: $42k → 16%DANIEL GARVER STUDIO: $28k → 16%LAKEVIEW MERCANTILE AND GARDENS IN: $25k → 16%TREASURES IN THE PINES: $20k → 16%BRYANTS SMALL ENGINE REPAIR: $20k → 16%HAIRCRAFT CO SALON: $15k → 16%MURPHYS AUTO CENTER LLC: $13k → 16%TREE HOUSE MOUNTAIN REALTY: $10k → 16%MINERAL CITY METAL WORKS: $10k → 16%CJS BARBECUE: $9k → 16%CITY DRIVE IN: $8k → 16%MITCHELL LUMBER COMPANY LLC: $5k → 16%BUCHANAN GEMSTONE MINES INC: $5k → 16%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
03the grantee network

1 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. 1 of the 40 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
1/1
Grantees still filing
0/1
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HEFS INC: $60,000 · OtherGEM CITY: $60,000 · OtherLYNN PETERSON STORE: $60,000 · OtherDT NIVEN ENTERPRISES INC: $60,000 · OtherMORGAN OIL COMPANY: $60,000 · OtherHARDINGS LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCEIN: $60,000 · OtherNIVEN PROPERTIES INC: $55,000 · OtherYOUNGS FUEL: $50,000 · OtherLOS GARCIA INC: $50,000 · OtherBLUE RIDGE OUTDOOR ADVENTURES: $50,000 · OtherLONG RANGE BALLISTICS: $50,000 · OtherD & S PROPANE LLC: $50,000 · OtherSTYLES OFFICE BUILDING: $50,000 · OtherRIDDLE FINANCIAL SOLUTION: $42,000 · Other+26 more: $423,500 · Other+26 more
Other$1,180,500

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGLENWOOD INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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 GLENWOOD INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 40 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Mitchell County Development’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