Skip to content
The Delta Institute at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Delta Institute

Delta institute is a nonprofit that collaborates with communities to solve complex environmental challenges across the midwest.

$975k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$306k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$1.0MCommunity Improvement$787kHousing & Shelter$668kPublic Benefit$407kEducation$197kFood & Nutrition$189kScience & Tech$128kInternational$117kOther$0
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 12 grants below total $913,214, the rows itemized in this filing. The $974,974 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $61,760 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 · FY2025

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $75k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $533k
  • $250k+1 grant · $306k
$75,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$8.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF HOBART$305,600
BIG NFP$107,500
REGIMENT SECURITIES LLC$100,000
389NM LLC$99,680
THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC$83,878
COMPEER FINANCIAL FLCA$75,000
GRAEF-USA INC$67,000
CAPSTONE REALTY RESOURCES$18,000
SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE$16,937
ILLINOIS INTERNATIONAL PORT DISTRICT$15,000
DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP$14,619
EPROPERTY INNOVATIONS LLC$10,000
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 82% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%REGIMENT SECURITIES LLC: $200k → 8%LIFT ECONOMY: $18k → 10%SCHICHTEL'S NURSERY: $19k → 13%ENCOURAGE CAPITAL: $65k → 17%WINROCK INTERNATIONAL: $53k → 17%NEW VENTURE FUND: $15k → 14%ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGY INC: $52k → 19%HAMMOND FARMS: $51k → 9%ALLEGAN CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $35k → 10%CAPSTONE REALTY RESOURCES: $18k → 10%ATOMIC OBJECT: $41k → 11%MUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION: $150k → 15%MUSKEGON RIVER WATERSHED ASSEMBLY: $16k → 20%LEIDENSCHAFT FARM: $16k → 9%COMPEER FINANCIAL FLCA: $75k → 10%PLOVGH: $20k → 15%GRAEF-USA INC: $67k → 17%SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE: $58k → 8%THE POWER BUREAU LLC: $15k → 9%CITY OF HOBART: $306k → 15%SPENCE FARM FOUNDATION: $40k → 11%KANKAKEE NURSERY CO: $17k → 14%COMMUNITY TRANSITION PLANNING: $71k → 14%NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $25k → 15%THE BOARD OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $30k → 19%Building Materials Reuse Association: $19k → 11%REGIMENT SECURITIES LLC: $100k → 8%WINROCK INTERNATIONAL: $50k → 17%ALLEGAN CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $30k → 10%Muskegon Conservation District: $112k → 15%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $20k → 16%SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE: $40k → 8%HOBART SANITARY DISTRICT: $40k → 15%ALLEGAN CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $27k → 10%MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: $18k → 16%SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE: $17k → 8%HOBART SANITARY DISTRICT: $20k → 15%CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY: $66k → 14%ALLEGAN CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $24k → 10%BRENNER BROTHERS AND SONS: $22k → 10%MONTAGUE TREE FARMS: $24k → 15%WEST MICHIGAN SHORELINE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: $18k → 15%389NM LLC: $100k → 14%389NM LLC: $87k → 14%389NM LLC: $57k → 14%389NM LLC: $49k → 14%BIG NFP: $108k → 14%ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES: $25k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CA
AR
NC
DC
TX
FL
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.

70%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 22 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +141% since the first grant, against +140% for those funded once.

22 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 14 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

22
40

Total granted

$2.5M
$896k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+141%
+140%

Still filing today

36%
28%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $200k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentPhilanthropyInternationalFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • TS
    THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $136k · revenue +3%
  • WI
    WINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
    5× · 2019–2023 · $117k · revenue +29%
  • CI
    CROATAN INSTITUTE
    4× · 2018–2021 · $68k · revenue +374%

Funded once

  • MC
    MUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
    one grant, 2018 · $150k
  • CT
    COMMUNITY TRANSITION PLANNING
    one grant, 2018 · $71k
  • CF
    CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY
    one grant, 2024 · $66k · revenue 0%
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
Illinois Sustainable Ag Partnership

The Illinois Sustainable Ag Partnership (ISAP) brings together diverse member organizations who work collaboratively to encourage the adoption of sustainable and profitable production practices that improve soil health and restore local…

Human Services
2
Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota

Support the development and enhancement of sustainable farming systems through farmer-to-farmer networking, innovation, demonstration, and education.

Food & Nutrition
3
Environmental Initiative

Catalyze collaboration across perspectives, power, and systems for social equity and environmental health.

Environment
4
American Farmland Trust

Saves the land that sustains us by protecting farmland, promoting sound farming practices, and keeping farmers on the land.

Food & Nutrition
5
The Land Institute

When people, land, and community are as one, all three members prosper; when they relate not as members but as competing interests, all three are exploited. by consulting nature as the source and measure of that membership, the land…

—
6
Socially Responsible Agriculture Project Inc

To conduct charitable, scientific and educational activities designed to foster the production of food in a manner that is economically viable and environmentally sound and provides for healthy and humanely raised products.

Food & Nutrition
7
Marbleseed Inc

Marbleseed educates, inspires, and empowers farmers to thrive in a sustainable, organic system of agriculture.

Health
8
Resource Renewal Institute

The resource renewal institute facilitates the creation, development and implementation of practical strategies to solve the entire complex environmental problem by addressing it comprehensively.

Environment
9
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.

Food & Nutrition
10
The Conservation Fund a Nonprofit Corporation

The conservation fund is in the business of conservation, creating innovative solutions that drive nature-based action for climate protection, sustainable economies and vibrant communities.

Environment
11
Noble Research Institute Llc

To guide farmers and ranchers in applying regenerative principles that yield healthier soil, more productive grazing land, and business success. (see schedule o)

Education
12
Ag Technology and Environmental Stewardship Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Land Connection Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Liberty Prairie Nfp. 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

29 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. 29 of the 67 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)
14
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/29
Grantees still filing
22/29
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF HOBART: $372,003 · OtherCITY OF HOBARTREGIMENT SECURITIES LLC: $300,000 · OtherREGIMENT SECURITIES LLC389NM LLC: $292,615 · Other389NM LLCGEI CONSULTANTS INC: $255,253 · OtherGEI CONSULTANTS INCMUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION: $150,000 · OtherTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $147,171 · OtherTHE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $135,900 · OtherMUSKEGON CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $124,830 · OtherALLEGAN CONSERVATION DISTRICT: $115,663 · Other+41 more: $1,069,903 · Other+41 moreSOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE: $114,936 · EnvironmentSOIL HEALTH …CROATAN INSTITUTE: $68,173 · EnvironmentCROATAN INST…CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY: $66,400 · EnvironmentCENTER FOR N…NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $51,500 · EnvironmentNATURAL LAND…MUSKEGON RIVER WATERSHED ASSEMBLY: $30,449 · EnvironmentMUSKEGON RIV…ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION: $27,500 · EnvironmentILLINOIS ENV…BUILDING MATERIAL RE-USE ASSOCIATION: $18,990 · EnvironmentNEW VENTURE FUND: $15,000 · Environment+3 more: $23,270 · Environment+3 moreWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: $116,914 · InternationalBIG NFP DBA Blacks in Green: $107,500 · Housing & ShelterGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP: $10,070 · PhilanthropyFOREFRONT: $5,325 · PhilanthropyAG INNOVATIONS NETWORK: $5,750 · Food & NutritionNehemiah Group dba Chicago Eco House: $5,000 · Community Improvement
Other$2,963,338Environment$416,218International$116,914Housing & Shelter$107,500Philanthropy$15,395Food & Nutrition$5,750Community Improvement$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC: $135,900 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: $116,914 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE: $114,936 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetCROATAN INSTITUTE: $68,173 over 4y, 21% of budgetCENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY: $66,400 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetNATURAL LAND INSTITUTE: $51,500 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetSPENCE FARM FOUNDATION: $39,990 over 3y, 86% of budgetALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES: $32,955 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetMUSKEGON RIVER WATERSHED ASSEMBLY: $30,449 over 2y, 5.2% of budgetILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION: $27,500 over 4y, 1.5% of budgetBUILDING MATERIAL RE-USE ASSOCIATION: $18,990 over 1y, 16% of budgetNEW VENTURE FUND: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: $14,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP: $10,070 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetOPENLANDS: $10,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCurrent Innovation NFP: $6,727 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAG INNOVATIONS NETWORK: $5,750 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetNehemiah Group dba Chicago Eco House: $5,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetJO DAVIESS CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 3y, 0.3% 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 THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds WINROCK INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds BIG NFP DBA Blacks in Green ↗
  • Who funds CROATAN INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TECHNOLOGY ↗
  • Who funds NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds SPENCE FARM FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES ↗
  • Who funds MUSKEGON RIVER WATERSHED ASSEMBLY ↗
  • Who funds ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL EDUCATION ↗
  • Who funds BUILDING MATERIAL RE-USE ASSOCIATION ↗

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.

Windward FundBuilders Vision Found…Walton Family Foundat…The McKnight Foundati…National Fish and Wil…PatagoniaorgUnited States Energy …Grand Victoria Founda…The Lumpkin Family Fo…The Energy FoundationNatural Resources Def…The Chicago Community…
Windward FundDC19.7× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Windward Fund · Builders Vision Foundation · Walton Family Foundation Inc · The McKnight Foundation · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Patagoniaorg · United States Energy Foundation · Grand Victoria Foundation · The Lumpkin Family Foundation · The Energy Foundation · Natural Resources Defense Council Inc · The Chicago Community Trust

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 The Delta Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Delta Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely 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 67 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 Delta Institute’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