Skip to content

· Public charity

New Hampshire Alliance of Regional Development Corporations Inc

An entity with membership of new hampshire economic development corporations sharing resources and information on a state wide basis.

$257k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$57k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Community Improvement$1.5MEmployment$67k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $201k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $57k
$21,998
Median grant
1
States reached
$11k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$56,925
COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP$39,000
BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL$38,000
MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP$23,320
MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC$21,998
WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$21,203
GRAFTON REGION DEVELOPMENT CORP$19,000
COASTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP$19,000
ROCKINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$19,000
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 (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 79% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $38k → 5%MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $23k → 9%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $38k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $57k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $25k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $40k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $39k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $24k → 5%MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 9%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $32k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $21k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $21k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $32k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON REGION DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $28k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $24k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON REGION DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCKINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $21k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCKINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $25k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $22k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $22k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $20k → 9%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.6M · 10 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
0

Total granted

$1.6M
$0

Still filing today

90%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • SE
    STRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $230k · revenue +40%
  • RE
    Rockingham Economic Development Corp
    8× · 2017–2024 · $178k · revenue +22%
  • CE
    COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI
    8× · 2017–2024 · $172k · revenue +513%

Funded once

    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
    Green Mountain Economic Development Corp

    To foster and develop economic vitality and prosperity consistent with the goals of the communities we serve.

    —
    2
    Northeast Kingdom Development Corporation

    Fostering, encouraging and assisting the physical location of business enterprises within the States of Vermont and New Hampshire, and having its principal purpose be industrial and economic development of one or more political…

    Employment
    3
    The Economic Development Corporation Serving Fresno County

    To promote and maintain a strong business climate throughout the city and to foster a healthy and sustainable economy for the benefit of the entire community.

    —
    4
    Northern Maine Development Commission

    To serve the northern Maine region with effective regional community planning and economic development.

    Community Improvement
    5
    Scotland County Economic Development Corporation

    To promote the growth of the local economy of Scotland County and City of Laurinburg through job creation, the investment in business property and infrastructure to facilitate economic growth and job creation.

    Employment
    6
    Cozad Development Corporation

    Foster Business Development in Cozad, NE

    —
    7
    Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts Inc

    To stimulate and facilitate a vigorous regional economy, encouraging and sustaining capital investment and quality job growth.

    —
    8
    Belknap County Economic Development Council Inc

    The mission of the council is to preserve and create employment opportunities, and provide educational and business development assistance in belknap county, new hampshire.

    —
    9
    Cowlitz Economic Development Council

    Foster Growth in the Community

    —
    10
    Skowhegan Economic Development Corp

    To foster, encourage and assist in the location, settlement or resettlement of industry and recreational, agricultural,and other business enterprises in the Town of Skowhegan and in the County of Somerset.

    Community Improvement
    11
    Addison County Economic Development Corporation

    To create an entrepreneurial and innovative environment, nurturing business to launch, grow, and thrive.

    —
    12
    Wayne Economic Development Corporation

    The corporation was formed to lessen the burdens of government and act in the public interest; to facilitate economic activities throughout wayne county, ny including the location and expansion of civic, industrial and commercial…

    Community Improvement
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grafton Regional Development Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Coos Economic Development Corporati. 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.

    Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    2
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    9/10
    Grantees still filing
    6/10
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    STRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $230,381 · Community ImprovementSTRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONRockingham Economic Development Corp: $178,345 · Community ImprovementRockingham Economic Development CorpCOOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI: $172,000 · Community ImprovementCOOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATINEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INC: $171,000 · Community ImprovementNEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INCGRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $164,467 · Community ImprovementGRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONMT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCIL: $154,671 · Community ImprovementMT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCILCAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $153,000 · Community ImprovementCAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPWentworth Economic Development Corp: $149,800 · Community ImprovementWentworth Economic Development CorpMONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $62,386 · Community ImprovementCoastal Economic Development Corporation: $114,000 · Other
    Community Improvement$1,436,050Other$114,000

    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 budgetSTRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $230,381 over 8y, 5.1% of budgetRockingham Economic Development Corp: $178,345 over 8y, 2.1% of budgetCOOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI: $172,000 over 8y, 16% of budgetNEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INC: $171,000 over 8y, 15% of budgetGRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $164,467 over 8y, 8.5% of budgetMT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCIL: $154,671 over 8y, 17% of budgetCAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $153,000 over 7y, 4.1% of budgetWentworth Economic Development Corp: $149,800 over 8y, 10% of budgetCoastal Economic Development Corporation: $114,000 over 6y, 10% of budgetMONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $62,386 over 4y, 0.7% 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 STRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
    • Who funds Rockingham Economic Development Corp ↗
    • Who funds COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI ↗
    • Who funds NEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INC ↗
    • Who funds GRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
    • Who funds MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCIL ↗
    • Who funds CAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗
    • Who funds Wentworth Economic Development Corp ↗
    • Who funds Coastal Economic Development Corporation ↗
    • Who funds MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗

    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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

    New Hampshire Charitable FoundationNH13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation

    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 New Hampshire Alliance of Regional Development Corporations Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from New Hampshire Alliance of Regional Development Corporations Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
      4report 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, FY20–25
      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 10 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 New Hampshire Alliance of Regional Development Corporations’ filings →

      More from the funding graph