Skip to content
Rural Development Initiatives Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Rural Development Initiatives Inc

Rdi strengthens rural people, places, and economies in the pacific northwest.

$168k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$17k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Recreation & Sports$150kCommunity Improvement$101kHuman Services$71kEnvironment$40kPublic Benefit$40kArts & Culture$16kFood & Nutrition$8kHousing & Shelter$6kOther$0
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $41,800, the rows itemized in this filing. The $167,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $125,700 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $33k
$16,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER$17,000
ROTARY CLUB OF OTHELLO$16,000
OTHELLO SENIOR CENTER$8,800
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 (FY20–21, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 20%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%EUVALCREE: $30k → 20%EUVALCREE: $10k → 20%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.

49%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$216k · 6 repeat orgs$221k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +94% since the first grant, against +40% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$216k
$179k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+94%
+40%

Still filing today

83%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $42k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’23’24
Community ImprovementEnvironmentHuman ServicesEmploymentReligionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • WS
    WARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM
    2× · 2020–2021 · $40k · revenue +165%
  • HIGH DESERT PARTNERSHIP
    2× · 2020–2021 · $40k · revenue +486%
  • LP
    Launch Pad Baker
    2× · 2020–2021 · $28k · revenue +3%

Funded once

  • CO
    CYCLE OREGON INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $150k · revenue +212% · 31% of their budget
  • BM
    BLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCILgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $8k · revenue +40%
  • DC
    DBG CONSTRUCTION LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
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
Team for Economic Action in Molalla

To build and maintain strong, diverse business districts; to create and retain living wage jobs; and to promote Molalla as a rewarding place to work, live, invest, and shop.

Community Improvement
2
Valley Vision Inc

To provide for the expansion of the employment base of Nez Perce County, by promoting the benefits of Nez Perce County to businesses and industries throughout the world that may have an interest in conducting operations in Nez Perce County.

—
3
Valley County Economic Develop Dba West Central Mtn Eco Develo

Economic development for the west central mountain idaho region

Community Improvement
4
Willapa Community Development Association

WCDA's mission is to create opportunities for business formation, growth and job creation and preserve the economic and social integrity of the places in which it does business. The WCDA was formed to acquire strategically located…

Housing & Shelter
5
Built Oregon

To accelerate entrepreneurial activity and enhance economic revitalization throughout the state of oregon.

Community Improvement
6
Baker City Downtown

Promotion and development of downtown Baker City.

Community Improvement
7
Eastern Plains Economic Development Corporation

To encourage, stimulate and promote economic development, expansion and diversification in southeastern montana

Community Improvement
8
Washington State Rural Development Council

The primary purpose of Washington State Rural Development Council is to work with rural partners around Washington State to coordinate services to rural communities and promote initiatives that support rural community and economic…

Community Improvement
9
Ecosource Native Seed & Restoration

EcoSource Native Seed & Restoration works with and for its members to provide business opportunities aimed at collecting, cleaning, producing, and storing genetically-appropriate native plant seeds. We also develop and implement the most…

Education
10
Ncw Economic Development District

To foster an innovative and resilient ecomomy for north cental washington's businesses, workers and families. as a regional organization, we create an arthurian-style partnership among regional communitites to identify and advance projects…

Community Improvement
11
Prineville Downtown Association

Economic development of rural Oregon towns

Community Improvement
12
Central Washington Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

We increase access to economic opportunities for business owners, entrepreneurs, and individuals in Central Washington by connecting and providing them with resources, representation, and opportunities to build community.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Warm Springs Community Action Team; the most unlike its peers is High Desert Partnership. 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

10 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. 10 of the 15 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CYCLE OREGON INC: $150,075 · OtherCYCLE OREGON INCCity of Veneta: $40,000 · OtherCity of VenetaROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $16,000 · OtherROTARY INTERNATIONALOTHELLO SENIOR CENTER: $8,800 · OtherBLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL: $8,000 · Other+3 more: $16,000 · Other+3 moreWARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM: $40,000 · Community ImprovementWARM SPRING…SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · Community ImprovementSOUTHEAST W…HIGH DESERT PARTNERSHIP: $40,000 · EnvironmentHIGH DESER…EUVALCREE: $40,000 · Human ServicesEUVALCREELaunch Pad Baker: $28,000 · EmploymentNORTHEAST OREGON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: $28,000 · ReligionLIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER: $17,000 · Youth Development
Other$238,875Community Improvement$45,000Environment$40,000Human Services$40,000Employment$28,000Religion$28,000Youth Development$17,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCYCLE OREGON INC: $150,075 over 1y, 31% of budgetWARM SPRINGS COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM: $40,000 over 2y, 3.5% of budgetHIGH DESERT PARTNERSHIP: $40,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetEUVALCREE: $40,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetLaunch Pad Baker: $28,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetNORTHEAST OREGON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: $28,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetLIGHTHOUSE COMMUNITY CENTER: $17,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetBLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL: $8,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSOUTHEAST WASHINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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.

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.

The Ford Family Found…The Oregon Community …Meyer Memorial TrustAmazonsmile Foundation
The Ford Family FoundationOR17.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ford Family Foundation · The Oregon Community Foundation · Meyer Memorial Trust · Amazonsmile 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 Rural Development Initiatives Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rural Development Initiatives Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 28%
  • High Desert Partnership: 100% of income from government
  • Northeast Oregon Economic Development District: 100% of income from government
  • Warm Springs Community Action Team: 28% of income from government
  • Euvalcree: 18% of income from government
  • Cycle Oregon Inc: 14% of income from government
  • Launch Pad Baker: 10% of 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)
2rely on government for over half their income
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 15 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Rural Development Initiatives’ filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home