Skip to content

· Public charity

Charleston Gazette Mail Charities Inc

Conduit for charitable gifts

$187k
Granted FY2017
18
Grants FY2017
1
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it funds
01FY2017 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 18 grants below total $154,670, the rows itemized in this filing. The $186,709 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $32,039 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 · FY2017

  • Under $10k10 grants · $68k
  • $10k–50k8 grants · $86k
$9,026
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY$13,048
APPALACHIAN COUNCIL HEAD START$12,000
WV DHHR LINCOLN COUNTY$10,572
WV DHHR FAYETTE COUNTY$10,454
WV DHHR WEBSTER COUNTY$10,134
MANNA MEAL$10,000
COVENANT HOUSE$10,000
MOUNTAIN MISSION$10,000
WV DHHR KANAWHA COUNTY$9,026
WV DHHR NICHOLAS COUNTY$8,950
KANAWHA VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES$8,378
UNION MISSION$8,000
SALVATION ARMY$8,000
GABRIEL PROJECT$6,000
BOONE COUNTY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION$5,108
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:

Its human-services grants (FY17–17, $21k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%UNION MISSION: $8k → 18%KANAWHA VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES: $8k → 18%DAYMARK: $5k → 18%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

7 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. 7 of the 18 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

APPALACHIAN COUNCIL HEAD START: $12,000 · OtherAPPALACHIAN COUNCIL HEAD STARTWV DHHR LINCOLN COUNTY: $10,572 · OtherWV DHHR LINCOLN COUNTYWV DHHR FAYETTE COUNTY: $10,454 · OtherWV DHHR FAYETTE COUNTYWV DHHR WEBSTER COUNTY: $10,134 · OtherWV DHHR WEBSTER COUNTYCOVENANT HOUSE INC: $10,000 · OtherCOVENANT HOUSE INCMOUNTAIN MISSION INC: $10,000 · OtherMOUNTAIN MISSION INCMANNA MEAL INC: $10,000 · OtherMANNA MEAL INCWV DHHR KANAWHA COUNTY: $9,026 · OtherWV DHHR KANAWHA COUNTYWV DHHR NICHOLAS COUNTY: $8,950 · OtherWV DHHR NICHOLAS COUNTYSALVATION ARMY: $8,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMYGABRIEL PROJECT: $6,000 · OtherBOONE COUNTY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION: $5,108 · OtherJERICO HOUSE: $5,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $5,000 · OtherTHE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $13,048 · Human ServicesTHE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIE…KANAWHA VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES INC: $8,378 · Human ServicesKANAWHA VALLEY SENIOR SER…UNION MISSION MINISTRIES INC: $8,000 · Human ServicesUNION MISSION MINISTRIES …DAYMARK INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesDAYMARK INC
Other$120,244Human Services$34,426

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 budgetTHE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF WEST VIRGINIA INC: $13,048 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOVENANT HOUSE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMOUNTAIN MISSION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetMANNA MEAL INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetKANAWHA VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES INC: $8,378 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetUNION MISSION MINISTRIES INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetDAYMARK INC: $5,000 over 1y, 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 CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF WEST VIRGINIA INC ↗
  • Who funds COVENANT HOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds MOUNTAIN MISSION INC ↗
  • Who funds MANNA MEAL INC ↗
  • Who funds KANAWHA VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds UNION MISSION MINISTRIES INC ↗
  • Who funds DAYMARK INC ↗

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.

Encova Foundation of West VirginiaWV17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Encova Foundation of West Virginia · The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation · The Daywood Foundationinc · McJunkin Family Foundation Truist Foundations and Endowment Spec Pract Tr · Bernard H and Blanche E Jacobson Foundation · The Martha Gaines & Russell Wehrle Memorial Foundation · Tgkvf Inc · Truist West Virginia Foundation Inc · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Charleston Gazette Mail Charities Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Charleston Gazette Mail Charities 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%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 18 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2019) is on record and reports $46k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2017, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Charleston Gazette Mail Charities’ filings →

    More from the funding graph