How much did NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 55% of NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

lungmental healthclasseshighestconductsfair housinghousing discrimination

2019

youth leadershipafricansoperate exclusivelyexclusively volunteerfire fightingfighting fireprotection emergency

2020

manageshabitatsconcordiaon-campusbhsuanonymouschildren children

2021

cafetake placeplace hometownsiouxalzheimer'stownrights

2022

—

2023

establishsheriff's officeoliverconservationsmallmckenziepark board

2024

aroundencourageparentingwalshabusiveclinicsunderserved rural

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 260 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k74 grants · $539k
$10k–50k139 grants · $2.8M
$50k–250k41 grants · $3.7M
$250k+6 grants · $3.1M

$15,000

Median grant

States reached

$160M

Total assets

Largest grants

THEODORE ROOSEVELT PRESIDENTIAL LIB$1,136,275
WISHEK PARK BOARD$781,511
UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE$322,741
MCKENZIE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTR$312,068
ST MARY'S SCHOOL$289,500
SAMARITAN'S PURSE$250,250
SITTING BULL COLLEGE$203,967
NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$187,926
CANDESKA CIKANA COMMUNITY COLLEGE$185,892
TURTLE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE I$163,934
DICKINSON AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$153,116
OAK GROVE LUTHERAN SCHOOL$150,000
PRAIRIE ROSE GOLF COURSE$133,000
ANNE CARLSEN CENTER$132,932
ARTHUR FIRE DEPARTMENT$120,000

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $1.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 11%. 48% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 6% of NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 97% of the giving stays in ND; read by stated purpose it is 92% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONlessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$32M · 271 repeat orgs$6.2M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +59% since the first grant, against +35% for the ones you funded once.

271 repeat relationships — 167 still active in FY2024, 104 since wound down; 91 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

271

241

Total granted

$32M

$3.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+59%

+35%

Still filing today

56%

42%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3.1M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesHealthEducationArts & CulturePhilanthropyRecreation & SportsOther

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

TR
THEODORE ROOSEVELT PRESIDENTIAL LIB
3× · 2017–2024 · $5.2M · revenue +11694%
NF
NDSU FOUNDATION
7× · 2017–2023 · $654k · revenue +78%
UT
UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE
6× · 2019–2024 · $651k · revenue +39%

Funded once

DP
DICKINSON PARKS AND RECREATION
one grant, 2022 · $325k
BS
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
one grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue -31%
CT
CROSS TRAININGgraduated
one grant, 2023 · $50k · revenue +60%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Ne South Dakota Community

The organization was formed to reduce poverty, revitalize low-income communities, and empower low-income individuals and families to become self sufficient.

—

North Dakota Natural Resources

—

North Dakota Association for the

Assisting people with physical and mental disabilities in the state of north dakota

Human Services

North Dakota Rural Health Association

Info & advocacy for rural health in nd

Health

Dakota Medical Foundation

We lead initiatives to create a region of the healthiest people, build the fundraising success of charities, and invest in new ideas that create widespread health improvement.

Health

Dickinson Area Chamber of Commerce

Promote business and community development in the dickinson, nd, area.

—

North Dakota Public Information Officer Association

Education

Unmc Physicians

Our mission is to lead the world in transforming lives to create a healthy future for individuals and communities through premier educational programs, innovative research, and extraordinary patient care.

Health

Northeast South Dakota Area Health

To advance rural health educational opportunities.

Education

North Dakota Masonic Foundation

—

Nd Association of Counties

NDACo provides leadership and services to foster effective and efficient government for the good of all counties.

—

Minnewaska Lutheran Home

Nursing home a community of services grounded in faith providing person centered care

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southeastern North Dakota Community and the most unlike its peers is Mott Food Pantry. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 27. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 6% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%10/599

the rest of the field

239/3,746

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

06the grantee network

327 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

130

Early backer (in before they grew)

302/327

Grantees still filing

240/327

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$21,877,476Education$8,905,064Health$2,113,748Human Services$1,923,152Philanthropy$1,278,202Arts & Culture$1,125,897Religion$496,764

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.

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.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota Caring FoundationND119.2× affinity69 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota Caring Foundation · Fargo-Moorhead Area Foundation · Midcontinent Foundation · The Tom and Frances Leach Foundatio · Dakota Medical Foundation · Great Plains Food Bank · United Way of Cass-Clay · Sanford Group Return · The Barry Foundation · Impact Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · Minot Community 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 organisation NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: WALSH COUNTY JOB DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

2 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +63% since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 363718311 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on WALSH COUNTY JOB DEVELOPMENT AUTHOR, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2023; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 89% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to North Dakota Community Foundation?

Find your warmest path to North Dakota Community Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

327 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to North Dakota Community Foundation?

More from the funding graph

NORTH DAKOTA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Where the work is directed

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

327 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to North Dakota Community Foundation?

More from the funding graph