· Public charity
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
RCAC provides training, technical and financial resources and advocacy so rural communities achieve their goals and visions.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k6 grants · $42k
- $10k–50k27 grants · $718k
- $50k–250k9 grants · $1.1M
- $250k+1 grant · $2.0M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Various Others | $1,966,380 |
| WARNER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC | $190,299 |
| WILLAMETTE PARTNERSHIP | $161,232 |
| STARTUP TUCSON | $155,000 |
| NEW MEXICO COMMUNITY CAPITAL | $125,000 |
| LOCAL FIRST ARIZONA Fndn | $125,000 |
| Marysville Joint Unified Sch | $122,395 |
| Community in Action | $96,853 |
| Inland Fair Hsg & Mediation B | $69,713 |
| HomesFund | $52,183 |
| Mother Lode Job Training | $44,688 |
| Access | $42,497 |
| Natl Affordable Hsg Network | $41,141 |
| Housing Solutions of N AZ | $39,991 |
| MOONSHOT MISSIONS | $39,125 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY21–25, $121k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 72% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +35% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.
44 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2025, 17 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $442k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- VCVENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION5× · 2021–2025 · $366k · revenue +65%
- HSHOUSING SOLUTIONS OF NORTHERN ARIZONA INC5× · 2021–2025 · $348k · revenue +81%
- HCHAWAIIAN COMMUNITY ASSETS INC3× · 2021–2024 · $296k · revenue +98%
Funded once
- PUParlier Unified School Distrione grant, 2023 · $104k
- LMLAKE MORENA OAK SHORES MUTUAL WATER COone grant, 2021 · $92k · revenue -100%
- OLOPPORTUNITY LINK INCone grant, 2021 · $60k · revenue +1%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Provide permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income families in the flathead valley and nw montana.
The California Housing Partnership Corporation creates and preserves affordable and sustainable homes for Californians with low incomes by providing expert financial and policy solutions to nonprofit and public partners.
To develop and preserve housing in Kootenai County that our low-income neighbors and our local workers can afford. We want to provide not just a place to live, but a place to build a future, for all residents living in our county.
The mission of the southwestern regional housing and community development corporation (srhcdc)is to provide affordable housing and housing resources to low and moderate income residents in luna, hidalgo, catron, grant and sierra counties,…
To provide quality affordable housing opportunities to individuals and families living in Utah.
Homes for Sonoma is a nonprofit developer creating quality workforce housing options that support safe and sustainable community, and finds efficient, scalable solutions to address the housing crisis in Sonoma County and throughout…
To address the concern of an inadequate supply of affordable, decent rental housing within the state of Idaho and other states and other similar areas of need. The Housing Company was created to encourage the development, management and…
The mission of the Two Valleys Community Land Trust is to create, preserve and manage affordable housing in the San Geronimo Valley and beyond.
To assist low income individuals and families with housing and housing improvements in Alaska.
Centering those who have been historically oppressed, housing development center, inc. collaborates with its partners to envision, develop, and sustain affordable homes and community places.
Habitat for humanity of north idaho works in partnership with the community to build decent, energy efficient houses for qualified families in kootenai county.
Through a fiscally responsible and multi-faceted approach, north west housing partnership nwhp promotes public and private partnerships that create and preserve cost-effective quality diverse housing for low to moderate-income residents…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Comite De Bien Estar Inc and the most unlike its peers is The California Endowment. 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.
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 27 years old; the field is 14. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 10% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
57 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 57 of the 90 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds Community Housing Council of Fresno ↗
- Who funds VENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds HOUSING SOLUTIONS OF NORTHERN ARIZONA INC ↗
- Who funds HAWAIIAN COMMUNITY ASSETS INC ↗
- Who funds ACCESS ↗
- Who funds INLAND FAIR HOUSING AND MEDIATION BOARD ↗
- Who funds WILLAMETTE PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ↗
- Who funds HOMESFUND ↗
- Who funds STARTUP TUCSON ↗
- Who funds Community in Action ↗
- Who funds National Affordable Housing Network ↗
- Who funds COMITE DE BIEN ESTAR INC ↗
- Who funds LOCAL FIRST ARIZONA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NEW MEXICO COMMUNITY CAPITAL ↗
- Who funds Earth Island Institute Inc ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD NONPROFIT HOUSING CORP ↗
- Who funds Self-Help Enterprises ↗
- Who funds LAKE MORENA OAK SHORES MUTUAL WATER CO ↗
- Who funds PLENTY DOORS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Companies for Causes ↗
- Who funds BLUE SKY SUSTAINABLE LIVING CENTER ↗
- Who funds OPPORTUNITY LINK INC ↗
- Who funds HOUSING AMERICA CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds SOUTHEAST IDAHO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT INC ↗
- Who funds SANTA FE COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST ↗
- Who funds Moonshot Missions 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.
Open a dossier: First Nations Development Institute · Wells Fargo Foundation · Meyer Memorial Trust · The Roundhouse Foundation · Enterprise Community Partners Inc · Montana Community Foundation Inc · Ndn Collective Inc · M J Murdock Charitable Trust · Resources Legacy Fund · The Oregon Community Foundation · Share Our Strength · The Nature Conservancy
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 Rural Community Assistance Corporation 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.
- Wallowa Resources Inc — 100% of income from government
- Willamette Partnership — 76% of income from government
- Community in Action — 65% of income from government
- Access — 65% of income from government
- Community Action Team — 29% of income from government
- The Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts — 18% of income from government
- Moonshot Missions Inc — 16% of income from government
- North Coast Land Conservancy Inc — 6% of income from government
- Sustainable Northwest — 5% of income from government
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.