How much did Rural Community Assistance Corporation grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 78% of Rural Community Assistance Corporation’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

2021

employee hiringhiring retainingwatertreatmentsystem

2022

earthsupportscsddisadvantagedrcbghudbandrcdi

2023

yochadehe breearthrcdi brebre fedswrcbunifieddisadvantaged

2024

vector clircdi breefc bilbil fedbre fedrcbghud bres-r

2025

livesefc multiplaceconditionschallengesdesign solutionsdistrict

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

03FY2024 · 34 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k3 grants · $25k
$10k–50k17 grants · $404k
$50k–250k12 grants · $898k
$250k+2 grants · $6.5M

$44,063

Median grant

States reached

$221M

Total assets

Largest grants

Various Others$5,988,628
Lake Morena Views Mut CO$506,653
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indi$152,477
Housing Solutions of N AZ$101,715
WILLAMETTE PARTNERSHIP$90,813
Inland Fair Hsg & Mediation B$88,314
W Arizona Council of Gov$73,464
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON$69,769
STARTUP TUCSON$60,000
Ventura Cty Comm Dev Corp$58,019
Access$52,766
Plenty Doors Comm Dev Corp$50,767
LOCAL FIRST ARIZONA Fndn$50,000
NEW MEXICO COMMUNITY CAPITAL$50,000
Natl Affordable Hsg Network$49,300

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 (FY21–23, $100k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11% — the area typically sits at 10%. 73% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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.

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.

54%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$8.2M · 34 repeat orgs$7.1M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +93% since the first grant, against +75% for the ones you funded once.

34 repeat relationships — 23 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$8.2M

$689k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+93%

+75%

Still filing today

62%

59%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 19% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6.4M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Housing & ShelterCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEnvironmentPhilanthropyCrime & LegalOther

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

CH
Comm Hsing Council of Fresno
3× · 2021–2024 · $512k · revenue +66% · 63% of their budget
VC
Ventura Cty Comm Dev Corp
4× · 2021–2024 · $329k · revenue +186%
HS
Housing Solutions of N AZ
4× · 2021–2024 · $308k · revenue +37%

Funded once

PU
Parlier Unified School Distri
one grant, 2023 · $104k
LM
Lake Morena Views Mut CO NV
one grant, 2021 · $92k · revenue -100%
OL
Opportunity Link Inc
one grant, 2021 · $60k · revenue +7%

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.

Foothills Housing Corporation

Providing safe, decent & affordable housing opportunities.

—

Rural Housing Development Corporation

To provide quality affordable housing opportunities to individuals and families living in Utah.

Housing & Shelter

California Housing Partner Corporation

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.

Unclassified

Northern California Land Trust

NCLT is dedicated to creating and preserving affordable housing for people with low to moderate incomes.

—

Boulder Housing Coalition

Provide affordable cooperative housing to the people of Boulder County, Colorado.

Housing & Shelter

Community Housing Partnership

Providing affordable housing to underserved communities locally and around the world.

Housing & Shelter

North Idaho Community Services Corp

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.

Unclassified

Homes for California

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…

Housing & Shelter

Community Development Corporation

Community development corporation of utah assists aspiring homeowners along the path to homeownership, develops sustainable and affordable housing, revitalizes and stabilizes neighborhoods and communities, and promotes self-sufficiency…

Housing & Shelter

North West Housing Partnership

Established in 1990, North West Housing Partnership (NWHP) is a nonprofit agency that promotes public and private partnerships that create and preserve cost-effective quality housing for low to moderate income residents and workers through…

—

Community Housing Sonoma County

Community Housing Sonoma County creates supportive housing communities for people living with disabling conditions, especially veterans.

Housing & Shelter

Habitat for Humanity of North Idaho

Habitat for humanity of north idaho works in partnership with the community to build decent, energy efficient houses for qualified families in kootenai county.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Housing Solutions of Northern Arizona Inc and the most unlike its peers is The Carolyn E Wylie Center for. 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 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

1%1/72

the rest of the field

12%

22,289/186,906

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.

05the grantee network

44 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)

Early backer (in before they grew)

43/44

Grantees still filing

35/44

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$11,797,442Housing & Shelter$1,892,294Community Improvement$638,846Philanthropy$305,318Environment$297,043Crime & Legal$184,515Human Services$99,865

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.

First Nations Development InstituteCO21.8× affinity9 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: First Nations Development Institute · Enterprise Community Partners Inc · Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation · Mufg Union Bank Foundation Ag · Meyer Memorial Trust · Consumer Credit Counseling Service Of · Oweesta Corporation · Ndn Collective Inc · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · The California Endowment · The Oregon 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 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

1rely 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: Comm Hsing Council of Fresno.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~3 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 8 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up +66% since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 113686123 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 Comm Hsing Council of Fresno, 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

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 3 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 63% 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 Rural Community Assistance Corporation?

Find your warmest path to Rural Community Assistance Corporation 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.

Rural Community Assistance Corporation

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?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

44 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Rural Community Assistance Corporation?

More from the funding graph

Rural Community Assistance Corporation

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?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

44 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Rural Community Assistance Corporation?

More from the funding graph