Skip to content
West Central Minnesota Communities Action Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

West Central Minnesota Communities Action Inc

Empowering people while providing services and resources that impact individuals and communities.

$2.9M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$93k
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, FY2022 to 2025.

Housing & Shelter$922kCommunity Improvement$153kReligion$93kHuman Services$40kEmployment$11k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $246,255, the rows itemized in this filing. The $2,860,788 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $2,614,533 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

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $140k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $93k
$17,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$6.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS$93,197
MINNESOTA VALLEY ACTION COUNCIL$40,000
LAKES AND PRAIRIES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP$34,058
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE INC$24,000
TRI-COUNTY ACTION PROGRAM INC$17,000
THREE RIVERS COMMUNITY ACTION INC$14,000
EMERGE$11,000
COMMUNITY ACTION DULUTH$7,000
MN8$6,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY24–25, $64k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 89% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $7k → 7%TRI-COUNTY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $17k → 11%LAKES AND PRAIRIES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: $34k → 11%MN8: $6k → 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.
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.0M · 4 repeat orgs$182k to everyone else

4 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
1

Total granted

$1.0M
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-6%
0%

Still filing today

75%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 29% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $175k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • MH
    Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
    3× · 2022–2024 · $922k
  • MV
    MINNESOTA VALLEY ACTION COUNCIL INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $50k · revenue +5%
  • ND
    NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $40k · revenue -41%

Funded once

  • AC
    ANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC
    one grant, 2024 · $7k · 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
Tri-County Community Action Partnership Inc

To engage the entire community to listen to and partner with low-income individuals and families to expand their opportunities to move out of economic poverty and toward prosperity.

—
2
Wright County Community Action Inc

Working in partnership with the community to empower residents to improve their physical, social and economic well-being. we work to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty.

Human Services
3
African Development Center

Grow businesses, build wealth and increase reinvestement in the african communities of minnesota

Human Services
4
Minnesota Community Action Partnership

To strengthen the capacity of its member agencies to achieve their poverty-fighting missions, through influential advocacy, collaboration, and training.

—
5
Central Minnesota Jobs and Training Services Inc

Strengthen central mn communities through leadership in workforce excellence.

—
6
St Paul Transportation Management Organization

Move minnesota leads the movement for an equitable and sustainable transportation system that puts people first. we are passionate about connecting communities, ending the climate crisis, expanding access to jobs and resources, and…

Environment
7
Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County

Partner with the community to provide effective and responsive services to reduce the impact of poverty in hennepin county.

Community Improvement
8
Northeast Iowa Community Action Corp

Through dynamic partnerships, quality family services, advocacy and education, neicac advances community development and improves social and economic conditions for individuals and families with limited resources.

Human Services
9
Minnesota Business Partnership

The minnesota business partnership's mission is to maintain a high quality of life for all minnesotans by ensuring that the state's economy remains strong, globally competitive and its prospects for growth bright by working with elected…

—
10
United Community Action Partnership Inc

The mission of united community action partnership, inc. (ucap) is building stronger communities by providing opportunities that empower people in need.

Community Improvement
11
Mn Community Measurement

Mn community measurement empowers stakeholders with meaningful information to drive improvement.

Health
12
Community Resource Connections Inc

Improving access to and the effectiveness of services through facilitation and coordination of community services and provision of information and referral services.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Three Rivers Community Action Inc; the most unlike its peers is Neighborhood Development Alliance Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 11 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Minnesota Housing Finance Agency: $921,507 · OtherMinnesota Housing Finance AgencyUNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE: $93,197 · OtherUNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE+3 more: $50,000 · OtherMINNESOTA VALLEY ACTION COUNCIL INC: $50,000 · Community ImprovementNEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE INC: $40,000 · Community ImprovementLAKES AND PRAIRIES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP INC: $34,058 · Human ServicesTRI-COUNTY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $17,000 · Human ServicesANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $7,000 · Human ServicesMN8: $6,000 · Human Services
Other$1,064,704Community Improvement$90,000Human Services$64,058

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMINNESOTA VALLEY ACTION COUNCIL INC: $50,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE INC: $40,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetLAKES AND PRAIRIES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP INC: $34,058 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION DULUTH INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetTRI-COUNTY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $17,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHREE RIVERS COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $14,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetANOKA COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Otto Bremer TrustSaint Paul & Minnesot…Greater Green Bay Com…Amazonsmile Foundation
Otto Bremer TrustMN17.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Otto Bremer Trust · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc · 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 West Central Minnesota Communities Action Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from West Central Minnesota Communities Action Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 11 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 West Central Minnesota Communities Action’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