How much did THE DELTA INSTITUTE grant in FY2023?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 84% of THE DELTA INSTITUTE’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.

02FY2023 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2023

Under $10k3 grants · $19k
$10k–50k6 grants · $140k
$50k–250k2 grants · $138k

$13,792

Median grant

States reached

$8.0M

Total assets

Largest grants

389NM LLC$86,770
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGY INC$51,500
GEI CONSULTANTS INC$44,554
SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE$40,000
HOBART SANITARY DISTRICT$19,624
WINROCK INTERNATIONAL$13,792
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY$12,056
COMPEER FINANCIAL FLCA$10,000
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$7,400
DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP$6,082
EMSL ANALYTICAL INC$5,280

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY18–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 14% — the area typically sits at 10%. 89% of your 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.

53%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$1.0M · 13 repeat orgs$905k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +437% since the first grant, against +85% for the ones you funded once.

13 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2023, 7 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$1.0M

$793k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+437%

+85%

Still filing today

23%

27%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $113k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

EnvironmentPhilanthropyInternationalFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementOther

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

WI
WINROCK INTERNATIONAL
5× · 2019–2023 · $117k · revenue +19%
CI
CROATAN INSTITUTE
4× · 2018–2021 · $68k · revenue +854%
IE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION FUND
3× · 2018–2021 · $23k · revenue +437%

Funded once

MC
MUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
one grant, 2018 · $150k
CT
COMMUNITY TRANSITION PLANNING
one grant, 2018 · $71k
EC
ENCOURAGE CAPITAL
one grant, 2018 · $65k

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.

The Land Institute

Develop a grain agriculture system with the ecological stability of natural systems and a grain yield comparable to that from annual crops.

—

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

Education

Oregon Agricultural Trust

Oregon agricultural trust partners with farmers and ranchers to protect agricultural lands for the benefit of oregons economy, communities, and landscapes.

Environment

Illinois Agricultural Leadership

To develop knowledgeable and effective leaders to become policy and decision makers for the agricultural industry.

Public Benefit

Sustainable Iowa Land Trust

To permanently protect iowa land to grow healthy food.

Environment

Ag Technology and Environmental

Philanthropy

Broad Water Innovations

Conservation easement holder and long-term steward of wetland, stream, and species mitigation banks.

Environment

New Roots Institute

New Roots Institute is a nonprofit empowering the next generation with knowledge and training to end factory farming.

Food & Nutrition

Ecoagriculture International Inc

Ecoagriculture partners enables landscape partnerships to engage in long-term collaboration, access finance, and influence local, national, and global policy to advance integrated landscape management.

Environment

The Wetlands Institute

The mission of the wetlands institute is to promote appreciation, understanding and stewardship of wetland and coastal ecosystems through programs in research, conservation and education.

—

International Rivers Network

International Rivers protects rivers and defends the rights of communities that depend on them.

Environment

Multinational Exchange for Sustainable a

MESA connects and cultivates sustainable farmers and food systems leaders around the world.

Education

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Land Connection Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Winrock International Institute. 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 26 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/71

the rest of the field

11%

206,164/1,819,494

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.

04the grantee network

22 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)

21/22

Grantees still filing

17/22

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$1,631,815Environment$166,355International$116,914Philanthropy$15,395Food & Nutrition$5,750Community Improvement$5,000

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.

PatagoniaorgCA20.5× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Patagoniaorg · Walton Family Foundation Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The McKnight Foundation · Grand Victoria Foundation · The Lumpkin Family Foundation · Windward Fund · Fremont Area Community Foundation · Builders Initiative Foundation · Community Foundation for Muskegon County · The Chicago Community Trust · Maine Community Foundation Inc

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 THE DELTA INSTITUTE 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

0rely 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: SPENCE FARM FOUNDATION.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

high risk

3 years of Form 990 filings, no recent filing.

Legal standing

medium risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 810670192 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 SPENCE FARM FOUNDATION, 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

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
FlagSustained operations— No recent filing on record.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 86% 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 The Delta Institute?

Find your warmest path to The Delta Institute 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.

THE DELTA INSTITUTE

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

22 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Delta Institute?

More from the funding graph

THE DELTA INSTITUTE

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

22 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to The Delta Institute?

More from the funding graph