Skip to content
Southern Delaware Tourism Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Southern Delaware Tourism Inc

Promote tourism in sussex county delaware

$889k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$545k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Community Improvement$3.9M
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $52k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $279k
  • $250k+1 grant · $545k
$58,203
Median grant
1
States reached
$597k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
REHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$545,324
BETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF C$159,467
LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$61,654
WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$58,203
GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$39,862
MILLSBORO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$12,555
MILTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$6,793
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MILLSBORO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $13k → 10%MILLSBORO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $11k → 10%WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $58k → 10%WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $55k → 10%WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $50k → 10%WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $46k → 10%WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $26k → 10%BETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF C: $171k → 10%GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $40k → 10%BETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF C: $169k → 10%GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $36k → 10%BETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF C: $159k → 10%GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $33k → 10%BETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF C: $130k → 10%GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $33k → 10%BETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF C: $75k → 10%GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $26k → 10%GREATER MILFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $6k → 10%MILTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $7k → 10%MILTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $7k → 10%MILTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $6k → 10%MILTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $6k → 10%LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $64k → 10%LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $62k → 10%LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $61k → 10%LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $53k → 10%LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $42k → 10%REHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $555k → 10%REHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $551k → 10%REHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $545k → 10%REHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $477k → 10%REHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $319k → 10%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.9M · 7 repeat orgs$6k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$3.9M
$6k

Still filing today

43%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • LC
    LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $281k · revenue +35% · 27% of their budget
  • WS
    WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $235k · revenue +6% · 39% of their budget
  • GG
    GREATER GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $168k · revenue +23%

Funded once

  • GM
    GREATER MILFORD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2021 · $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
04the grantee network

3 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. 3 of the 8 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/3
Grantees still filing
3/3
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $2,447,000 · OtherREHOBOTH-DEWEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCEBETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF C: $705,263 · OtherBETHANY - FENWICK AREA CHAMBER OF CWESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $234,935 · OtherWESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INCGREATER GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $167,760 · Other+3 more: $53,919 · OtherLEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $281,134 · Community Improvement
Other$3,608,877Community Improvement$281,134

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $281,134 over 5y, 27% of budgetWESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $234,935 over 5y, 39% of budgetGREATER GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC: $167,760 over 5y, 24% 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 LEWES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC ↗
  • Who funds WESTERN SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC ↗
  • Who funds GREATER GEORGETOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Southern Delaware Tourism Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Southern Delaware Tourism Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →median 1%
  • Western Sussex Chamber of Commerce Inc: 1% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
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 8 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Southern Delaware Tourism’s 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