Skip to content

· Public charity

North Delta Regional Planning & Development District Inc

To provide economic development assistance.

$427k
Granted FY2020
9
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$255k
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 2020.

Human Services$4.4MFood & Nutrition$255kCrime & Legal$42k
02FY2020 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2020

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $168k
  • $250k+1 grant · $255k
$23,255
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Bountiful Foods Catering$255,489
Madison COA$34,054
Richland VCOA$25,382
Faith and Hope Independent Li$25,061
East Carroll VCOA$23,255
Jackson COA$17,624
Franklin VCOA$17,380
Union COA$14,879
Tensas COA$10,368
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–20, $1.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 38%, against an area that typically sits at 25%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 25%Tensas COA: $163k → 35%Madison COA: $230k → 37%EAST CARROLL VCOA: $143k → 42%Tensas COA: $155k → 35%Madison COA: $222k → 37%East Carroll VCOA: $136k → 42%TENSAS COA: $147k → 35%MADISON COA: $217k → 37%East Carroll VCOA: $133k → 42%Tensas COA: $10k → 35%Madison COA: $34k → 37%East Carroll VCOA: $23k → 42%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.3M · 9 repeat orgs$335k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2020, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
1

Total granted

$4.3M
$55k

Still filing today

78%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 34% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $281k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20
Human ServicesCivil RightsOther
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

  • UC
    Union Council on Aging Inc
    4× · 2017–2020 · $772k · revenue +80% · 57% of their budget
  • TM
    The Madison Voluntary Council on Aging Inc
    4× · 2017–2020 · $703k · revenue +95% · 44% of their budget
  • JC
    Jackson Council on the Aging Inc
    4× · 2017–2020 · $634k · revenue +35% · 27% of their budget

Funded once

  • FH
    FAITH & HOPE IND LIVING
    one grant, 2019 · $55k
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
Jackson County Council On Aging

Provide services to local seniors to improve their quality of life and assist them in remaining in their homes

Human Services
2
Catahoula Council On Aging Inc

Non-profit services to the elderly of catahoula parish, la

—
3
St Mary Council On Aging Inc

To deliver services to the elderly of st. mary parish. we are the designated agency (in affiliation with regional & state agencies) for meal services, senior center, homemaker, transportation and similar services to the aging.

—
4
Concordia Council On Aging Inc

To provide services to the elderly age 60 and above in Concordia Parish, La. that enables them to remain at home in their community

Human Services
5
Evangeline Council On Aging Inc

To deliver services to the elderly of evangeline parish. we are the designated agency (in affiliation with regional & state agencies) for meal services,senior center, homemaker, transportation and similar services to the aging.

Human Services
6
Lincoln Council On Aging Inc

Lincoln council on aging, inc. provides meals, transportation, health and social services to the elderly residents of lincoln parish, louisiana.

Human Services
7
Dyer County Office on Aging Inc

To provide activities and services for senior citizens of Dyer County

Human Services
8
Allen Council On Aging Inc

All programs are designed to deliver services to the elderly of allen parish. we are the designated agency for meal services, senior centers, homemakers, transport and other services to the aging.

Human Services
9
Winn Council On Aging Inc

To provide services for the elderly age 60 and older of winn parish, la that enable them to remain at home in their commumities for as long as possible following the guidelines set forth in the older americans' act of 1965 and the state of…

Human Services
10
Union County Council On Aging

To promote the mental social and physical welfare of seniors in Union County SC. To operate senior centers providing group dining home delivered meals transportation homemaker services and material support to seniors 60 and older.

Human Services
11
South Royalton Senior Center

Provides meals and services to senior citizens of the comunity and surrounding towns

—
12
Vermilion Council On Aging Inc

To deliver services to the elderly of vermillion parish. we are the designated agency (in affiliation with regional & state agencies) for meal services,senior center, homemaker, transportation and similar services to the aging.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Union Council on Aging Inc; the most unlike its peers is Legal Services of North Louisiana. 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

8 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. 8 of the 12 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.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Union Council on Aging Inc: $772,216 · OtherUnion Council on Aging IncJackson Council on the Aging Inc: $633,986 · OtherJackson Council on the Aging IncRichland Voluntary Council on Aging Inc: $616,852 · OtherRichland Voluntary Council on Aging IncBountiful Foods Catering: $255,489 · OtherBountiful Foods CateringA HELPING HAND TOO LLC: $118,993 · Other+3 more: $121,942 · OtherThe Madison Voluntary Council on Aging Inc: $703,444 · Human ServicesThe Madison Voluntary Council on Aging …Tensas Council on Aging Inc: $474,843 · Human ServicesTensas Council on Aging IncEast Carroll Council on Aging: $435,158 · Human ServicesEast Carroll Council on AgingFranklin Council on Aging Inc: $521,856 · Civil RightsFranklin Cou…
Other$2,519,478Human Services$1,613,445Civil Rights$521,856

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUnion Council on Aging Inc: $772,216 over 4y, 57% of budgetThe Madison Voluntary Council on Aging Inc: $703,444 over 4y, 44% of budgetJackson Council on the Aging Inc: $633,986 over 4y, 27% of budgetRichland Voluntary Council on Aging Inc: $616,852 over 4y, 91% of budgetFranklin Council on Aging Inc: $521,856 over 4y, 50% of budgetTensas Council on Aging Inc: $474,843 over 4y, 55% of budgetEast Carroll Council on Aging: $435,158 over 4y, 55% of budgetLEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH LOUISIANA: $42,379 over 3y, 63% 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 Union Council on Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds The Madison Voluntary Council on Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds Jackson Council on the Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds Richland Voluntary Council on Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds Franklin Council on Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds Tensas Council on Aging Inc ↗
  • Who funds East Carroll Council on Aging ↗
  • Who funds LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH LOUISIANA ↗

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.

Cenla Area Agency on Aging IncLA22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Cenla Area Agency on Aging Inc · Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana 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 North Delta Regional Planning & Development District Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from North Delta Regional Planning & Development District Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    7report 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 12 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on North Delta Regional Planning & Development District’s filings →

    More from the funding graph