Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Northern California Indian Development Council Inc

Research, develop, and administer social and economic development programs to meet the needs of indian and native american communities and individuals residing in the state of california.

$1.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
18
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$181k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20192024.

Community Improvement$3.0MEmployment$1.6MInternational$796kReligion$63kArts & Culture$48kFood & Nutrition$40kCivil Rights$30k
02FY2024 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 18 grants below total $636,513 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,439,371 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $802,858 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k7 grants · $52k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $193k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $391k
$16,901
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Walking Shield Inc$181,292
SO CAL INDIAN RESOURCE CENTER$145,575
CA INDIAN MANPOWER CONSORTIUM$64,316
Individual grant recipient$33,673
BISHOP INDIAN RESERVATION$32,479
TULE RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION$30,864
Individual grant recipient$30,674
Barona Group of Capitan Grand$25,302
PALA INDIAN RESERVATION$16,901
NOR-EL-MUK BAND$12,039
YUROK INDIAN RESERVATION$11,030
Individual grant recipient$9,600
SANTA YSABEL INDIAN NATION$7,724
LA JOLLA BAND OF INDIAN$7,670
CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE$7,294
02The need
03

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 (FY19–24, $980k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Walking Shield Inc: $181k → 10%Walking Shield Inc: $173k → 10%Walking Shield Inc: $135k → 10%Walking Shield Inc: $123k → 10%SO CA INDIAN RESOURCE CENTER: $209k → 11%Southern California American Indian Resource Center: $158k → 11%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 linein 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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$5.2M · 29 repeat orgs$431k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +15% since the first grant, against +8% for the ones you funded once.

29 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 14 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
22

Total granted

$5.2M
$409k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+15%
+8%

Still filing today

14%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $23k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesEmploymentArts & CultureOther

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

  • CI
    CALIFORNIA INDIAN MANPOWER CONSORTIUM INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $2.0M · revenue +25%
  • SC
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AMERICAN INDIAN RESOURCE CENTER INC
    6× · 2019–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +15%
  • WS
    Walking Shield Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $613k · revenue -18%

Funded once

  • UI
    United Indian Nations Inc
    one grant, 2019 · $183k · 31% of their budget
  • TR
    Tule River Indian Tribe Californa
    one grant, 2019 · $46k
  • SC
    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN CENTER INC
    one grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue -54%

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

04Your field
04the grantee network

6 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 6 of the 54 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
4/6
Grantees still filing
3/6
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

CALIFORNIA INDIAN MANPOWER CONSORTIUM INC — $1,971,651 · EmploymentCALIFORNIA INDIAN MANPOWER CONSORTIUM IN…BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE — $233,858 · OtherBISHOP PAIUTE TRIBETULE RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION — $190,861 · OtherTULE RIVER INDIAN RESERVATIONUnited Indian Nations Inc — $182,754 · OtherUnited Indian Nations IncYUROK TRIBE — $129,656 · OtherYUROK TRIBEIndividual grant recipient — $102,321 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient — $93,120 · OtherCAMPO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS — $88,894 · OtherPALA INDIAN RESERVATION — $64,873 · Other+42 more — $720,473 · Other+42 moreSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AMERICAN INDIAN RESOURCE CENTER INC — $1,170,435 · Human ServicesSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AMERICAN INDIAN …Walking Shield Inc — $612,776 · Human ServicesWalking Shield IncNOR EL MUK BAND OF WINTU INDIANS OF NORTHERN CA — $19,962 · Arts & Culture
Employment$1,971,651Other$1,806,810Human Services$1,783,211Arts & Culture$19,962

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCALIFORNIA INDIAN MANPOWER CONSORTIUM INC — $1,971,651 over 6y, 6.5% of budgetSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AMERICAN INDIAN RESOURCE CENTER INC — $1,170,435 over 6y, 20% of budgetWalking Shield Inc — $612,776 over 4y, 12% of budgetUnited Indian Nations Inc — $182,754 over 1y, 31% of budgetSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN CENTER INC — $15,110 over 1y, 1.4% of budget
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.

  • Who funds CALIFORNIA INDIAN MANPOWER CONSORTIUM INC
  • Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AMERICAN INDIAN RESOURCE CENTER INC
  • Who funds Walking Shield Inc
  • Who funds United Indian Nations Inc
  • Who funds NOR EL MUK BAND OF WINTU INDIANS OF NORTHERN CA
  • Who funds SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INDIAN CENTER INC

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.

First Nations Development InstituteCO37.3× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: First Nations Development Institute · Grid Alternatives · Humboldt Area Foundation · Resources Legacy Fund · Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians · Indian Land Tenure Foundation · Public Health Institute · National Congress of American Indians Fund · Community Foundation of Mendocino County · Sierra Health Foundation Center for Health Program Management · Boys & Girls Clubs of America · National Fish and Wildlife 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 organization Northern California Indian Development Council Inc 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.

2025
202122232425
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%your 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
    1report 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, FY2025

    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 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

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Northern California Indian Development Council Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Northern California Indian Development Council Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 54 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph