Skip to content
NACDC Financial Services Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

NACDC Financial Services Inc

Provide alternative financing opportunity for Native American entrepreneurs and small businesses in communities in and near Indian Reservations.

$1.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$204k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Employment$2.2MCommunity Improvement$75kFood & Nutrition$13k
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $1,454,781, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,545,973 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $91,192 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.
$117,694
Median grant
4
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Four Bands Community Loan Fund$203,664
Montana Native Growth Fund$183,226
Akiptan Inc$170,493
Wind River Development Fund$149,659
Indigenous Impact Co$144,000
Plenty Doors Community Development Corporation$117,694
Native American Development Corporation$114,763
Black Hills Community Loan Fund$103,899
Montana Health Care Foundation$100,000
Peoples Partner for Community Development Corporation$66,283
Sweet Grass Consulting LLC$51,100
Mountain Plains CDC$50,000
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 (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 75% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Indigenous Impact Co: $144k → 9%Native American Devl Corp: $130k → 9%Montana Health Care Foundation: $100k → 10%Montana Native Growth Fund: $183k → 17%The Peoples Partners for Comm: $189k → 18%Plenty Doors Community Development Corporation: $118k → 23%Sweet Grass Consulting LLC: $51k → 11%Wind River Development Fund: $150k → 17%Mountain Plains CDC: $50k → 9%Black Hills Comm Loan Fund: $207k → 14%Four Bands Community Loan Fund: $204k → 25%Native American Development Corporation: $115k → 9%Montana Native Growth Fund: $35k → 17%Peoples Partner for Community Development Corporation: $66k → 18%Plenty Doors CDC: $51k → 23%Wind River Devl Fund: $13k → 17%Black Hills Community Loan Fund: $104k → 14%Akiptan Inc: $170k → 25%Native American Devl Corp: $13k → 9%Montana Native Growth Fund: $13k → 17%The Peoples Partners for Comm: $13k → 18%Plenty Doors CDC: $13k → 23%Wind River Devl Fund: $10k → 17%Black Hills Comm Loan Fund: $13k → 14%Akiptan Inc: $66k → 25%Arrow Creek Wellness LLC: $10k → 9%Four Bands Community Fund: $43k → 25%Akiptan Inc: $13k → 25%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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.9M · 8 repeat orgs$355k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
1

Total granted

$1.9M
$10k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $345k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
Community ImprovementPublic BenefitPhilanthropyOther
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

  • BH
    BLACK HILLS COMMUNITY LOAN FUND INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $323k · revenue +105%
  • TP
    THE PEOPLES PARTNERS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
    3× · 2022–2024 · $267k · revenue +262%
  • NA
    NATIVE AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATON
    3× · 2022–2024 · $257k · revenue +168%

Funded once

  • AC
    ARROW CREEK WELLNESS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
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
Eastern Plains Economic Development Corporation

To encourage, stimulate and promote economic development, expansion and diversification in southeastern montana

Community Improvement
2
Westwater Financial Inc

Native Community Development Financial Institution. To foster, facilitate and promote community and economic development among Dry Creek Tribal members, thier families and other Native

Community Improvement
3
Valley County Economic Develop Dba West Central Mtn Eco Develo

Economic development for the west central mountain idaho region

Community Improvement
4
Great Northern Development Corporation

Great northern development corporation (gndc) is a montana nonprofit corporation. its purpose is to support and promote commerce in northeastern montana. the board of gndc solicits public and private contributions to allocate among various…

Employment
5
Northwest Native Development Fund

The organization seeks to foster economic and financial independence for native people by assisting in the development of personal assets through financial and entrepreneurial education as well as providing access to capital through…

Human Services
6
Rural Idaho & Mountain West Primary Care
Health
7
Montana United Indian Association

The organization's purpose is to improve the economic, social and cultural status of montana's urban native americans by promoting and creating job opportunities and providing education assistance

—
8
Cozad Development Corporation

Foster Business Development in Cozad, NE

—
9
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust
—
10
North Central Montana Economic Development District

To provide through local leadership economic, technical, and engineering information, and access to resources to improve theeconomies in the area.

Community Improvement
11
Idaho Forest Restoration Partnership
Environment
12
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Economic Development Corporation

Economic Development

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Native American Development Corporaton; the most unlike its peers is Montana Healthcare 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
9/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BLACK HILLS COMMUNITY LOAN FUND INC: $323,204 · Community ImprovementBLACK HILLS COMMUNITY LOAN FUND INCTHE PEOPLES PARTNERS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $267,482 · Community ImprovementTHE PEOPLES PARTNERS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTNATIVE AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATON: $257,263 · Community ImprovementNATIVE AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATONFOUR BANDS COMMUNITY FUND INC: $246,700 · Community ImprovementFOUR BANDS COMMUNITY FUND INCIsland Mountain Community Development Financial Institution Inc: $231,173 · Community ImprovementIsland Mountain Community Development Financial Institution IncPLENTY DOORS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $181,263 · Community ImprovementPLENTY DOORS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONWIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT FUND: $172,252 · Community ImprovementWIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT FUND+1 more: $50,000 · Community ImprovementAKIPTAN INC: $249,314 · Public BenefitAKIPTAN INCIndigenous Impact Co: $144,000 · OtherIndigenous…Sweet Grass Consulting LLC: $51,100 · OtherSweet Gras…ARROW CREEK WELLNESS FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 · OtherMONTANA HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION: $100,000 · Philanthropy
Community Improvement$1,729,337Public Benefit$249,314Other$205,100Philanthropy$100,000

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 budgetBLACK HILLS COMMUNITY LOAN FUND INC: $323,204 over 3y, 18% of budgetTHE PEOPLES PARTNERS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $267,482 over 3y, 16% of budgetNATIVE AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATON: $257,263 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetAKIPTAN INC: $249,314 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetFOUR BANDS COMMUNITY FUND INC: $246,700 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetIsland Mountain Community Development Financial Institution Inc: $231,173 over 3y, 70% of budgetPLENTY DOORS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $181,263 over 3y, 4.5% of budgetWIND RIVER DEVELOPMENT FUND: $172,252 over 3y, 3.0% of budgetMONTANA HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMOUNTAIN PLAINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $50,000 over 1y, 2.7% 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.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Northwest Area Founda…First Interstate Banc…Wells Fargo FoundationOweesta CorporationNative American Agric…Ndn Collective IncOpportunity Finance N…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Montana Community Fou…First Nations Develop…
Northwest Area FoundationMN22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Northwest Area Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Wells Fargo Foundation · Oweesta Corporation · Native American Agriculture Fund · Ndn Collective Inc · Opportunity Finance Network · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Montana Community Foundation Inc · First Nations Development Institute

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 13 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 NACDC Financial Services’ 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