Skip to content
Thurston Economic Development Council Center for Business & Innovation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Thurston Economic Development Council Center for Business & Innovation

Provide services that develop the entrepreneurial network of thurston county and support the entire business lifecycle from planning, launching, growing, turnaround & exit planning.

$1.0M
Granted FY2020
95
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2020 · 95 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 95 grants below total $898,400, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,018,945 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $120,545 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 · FY2020

  • Under $10k16 grants · $108k
  • $10k–50k79 grants · $790k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$470k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NEW CHINA HOUSE LLC$10,000
TO THU TRAN CORPSTAR NAILS AND SPA$10,000
MOON SUNG WOOKPHO MANIA$10,000
HAWKS PRAIRIE VISION CLINIC$10,000
CAIN ATWELL & ASSOCIATES INC$10,000
ZACHARY P EHRMANTROUT DDS PS$10,000
HILLS & WATKINS INC$10,000
MARRY AND CAMILLA FAULKSPORTS CUTS LLC$10,000
HAPPY NAILS$10,000
CANINE CHATEAU$10,000
ILSE JO-ANNETTE MULLEN LEAPS AND BOUNDS$10,000
ABUNDANT LIFE COFFEE INC$10,000
ALL PRO SCREEN PRINTING & EMBROIDERY LLC$10,000
AUTO TINT NORTHWEST$10,000
KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER$10,000
02The need
02

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 (FY20–20) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%PERSINGER WHISLER PLLC: $10k → 9%PETERSON & CAMMACK DDS PLLC: $10k → 9%HILLS & WATKINS INC: $10k → 9%AMY L MURRYHUMAN BODY WORKS PLLC: $10k → 9%TURNER BISHOPP COOKE LLC: $10k → 9%CATWALK STUDIO HAIR DESIGN LLC: $10k → 9%INTERACTION RESEARCH CORPORATIONIRC: $10k → 9%LACEY MEDICAL CLINIC PS: $10k → 9%AUTO TINT NORTHWEST: $10k → 9%HAPPY NAILS: $10k → 9%OLYMPIC HEALTH AND SAFETY NETWORK INC: $10k → 9%ALL CITY CLEANING SERVICES LLC: $10k → 9%RANDALL CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC: $10k → 9%CUTE NAILS: $10k → 9%MISO GROUP LLC: $10k → 9%NEW CHINA HOUSE LLC: $10k → 9%MERLE NORMAN COSMETICSMADELIN WHITE: $10k → 9%CHONG UNG QCD NAILS & SPA LLC: $10k → 9%DOLLHOUSE HAIR SALON LLC: $10k → 9%HEARING INC: $10k → 9%HOWARD MCCULLOOUGH INC: $10k → 9%GALAXIAL ENTERTAINMENT: $10k → 9%OLYMPIC DENTAL AND DENTURE LLC: $10k → 9%CAIN ATWELL & ASSOCIATES INC: $10k → 9%KAMAKURA JAPANESE CUISINE: $10k → 9%THE WAVE CARWASH: $10k → 9%Z GEN LLCWINDOW GENIE OF OLYMPIA: $10k → 9%TIRE DOGS: $10k → 9%BRANDON WAYNE SECHRIST: $10k → 9%MARRY AND CAMILLA FAULKSPORTS CUTS LLC: $10k → 9%RICARDO'S RESTAURANT: $10k → 9%GRATEFUL DOGS GROOMING AND DAYCARE: $10k → 9%INSIDE VIEW 3D4D ULTRASOUNDS LLC: $10k → 9%BLUE SPARROW SALON: $10k → 9%TEN AND TWO INC: $10k → 9%RITZ CLEANERS INC: $10k → 9%EZ FOODS OLYMPIA: $10k → 9%SOURU CORP: $10k → 9%KCJ CLOTHING: $10k → 9%ALL PRO SCREEN PRINTING & EMBROIDERY LLC: $10k → 9%IRIS GROUP PLLC: $10k → 9%GABI'S OLYMPIC CARDS AND COMICS: $10k → 9%ENERTEC CORPORATION: $10k → 9%GENUINE AUTO GLASS OF LACEY: $10k → 9%ABUNDANT LIFE COFFEE INC: $10k → 9%JIN AND CHOON INC: $10k → 9%KITCHEN DESIGN CENTER: $10k → 9%ALL FIT LLC DABA THRIVE COMMUNITY FITNESS: $10k → 9%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 field
03the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2020–2020.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2020 to 2020, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 92 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.

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

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

+92 more: $898,400 · Other+92 more
Other$898,400

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 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.

Thurston County Econo…Ndc Housing & Economi…
Thurston County Economic Development CouWA49.1× affinity24 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Thurston County Economic Development Cou · Ndc Housing & Economic Development Corporation - Group Return

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.

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 92 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder made grants.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Thurston Economic Development Council Center for Business & Innovation’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