Skip to content
Multi-Service Center at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Multi-Service Center

Msc uplifts communities by increasing equitable access to advocacy, opportunities, and well-being.

$12M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$304k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$5.8MHealth$3.3MPublic Safety & Disaster$2.6MFood & Nutrition$1.3MYouth Development$135kPhilanthropy$14k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $1,391,930, the rows itemized in this filing. The $12,067,429 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $10,675,499 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–50k1 grant · $16k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $781k
  • $250k+2 grants · $595k
$125,331
Median grant
1
States reached
$32M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PIERCE COUNTY SERVICES$303,553
SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS$290,950
AREA AGENCY ON AGING & DISABILITIES$230,106
PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE$147,988
OLYMPIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING LTC$125,331
BLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL$116,374
KITSAP COUNTY AGING AND LTC$81,683
TIMBER RIVER CONNECTIONS$79,762
LEWIS COUNTY SENIORS$16,183
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 (FY17–25, $3.7M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%SKAGIT COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $8k → 11%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $562k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $391k → 17%YWCA SEATTLE-KING COUNTY-SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $75k → 9%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $156k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $371k → 17%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $152k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $148k → 17%YWCA SEATTLE-KING COUNTY-SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $16k → 9%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $151k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $71k → 17%ABUSED DEAF WOMEN'S ADVOCACY SERVICES: $2k → 9%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $134k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $64k → 17%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $127k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $56k → 17%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $119k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $54k → 17%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $688k → 12%PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $51k → 17%SNAP SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $291k → 12%DOMESTIC ABUSE WOMEN'S NETWORK: $6k → 9%ENUMCLAW FOOD BANK (PLATEAU OUTREACH): $3k → 9%KENT FOOD BANK & EMERGENCY SERVICES: $16k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$13M · 11 repeat orgs$249k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +56% since the first grant, against +38% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
17

Total granted

$13M
$249k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
+38%

Still filing today

45%
76%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesFood & NutritionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • SN
    SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +56%
  • BM
    BLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +141%
  • PF
    PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE
    8× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +118%

Funded once

  • FW
    Federal Way Youth Action Team
    one grant, 2019 · $73k · revenue -95% · 34% of their budget
  • EC
    EVERYBODY CAN WIN
    one grant, 2019 · $40k
  • AI
    AMBITION IS PRICELESS
    one grant, 2019 · $23k
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
Snoqualmie Valley Food Bank

Our mission is to provide food and key resources to help our neighbors and community thrive. we lead the effort to feed, educated and advocate ending hunger in the snoqualmie valley and beyond.

Food & Nutrition
2
Port Angeles Food Bank

Nourishing our community. the port angeles food bank is the main food bank in clallam county, providing food to 13 other area pantries and meal programs as well as providing food to over 5,000 individuals per month.

Food & Nutrition
3
West Seattle Food Bank

West Seattle Food Bank strengthens the community through the power of neighbors helping neighbors, working to ensure all in our community have access to the essential necessities of living.

Food & Nutrition
4
Yakima Rotary Food Bank

To Provide nutitious food of their choice to those requesting our assistance, with minimal barriers.

—
5
Nourish Pierce County

To provide food to individuals in need with compassion, dignity and respect. No one needing assistance is turned away.

—
6
Nooksack Valley Food Bank Association

Our mission is to provide a variety of food products to families and individuals who are in need. We are open one day a week.

Food & Nutrition
7
Puyallup Food Bank

We are passionate about meeting the urgent needs of our neighbors and partnering to assist them, believing food is the first step on their journey to a more hopeful future!

Human Services
8
Renewal Food Bank

Renewal Food Bank provides food to needy and economically vulnerable individuals who live in Bellevue, Washington and surrounding communities

Human Services
9
Rainier Valley Food Bank

Our mission is to nourish with good food, empower with knowledge, and serve with compassion.

Unclassified
10
Issaquah Food and Clothing Bank

Unite our community in nourishing and nurturing individuals by removing barriers to healthy food, vital resources, and connections to essential services.

Human Services
11
Alameda Emergency Food Dba Alameda Food Bank

Founded in 1977, The Alameda Food Bank is a non-profit organization that helps Alameda residents in need by providing nourishing food in compassionate and respectful manner with the support of dedicated volunteers and local partners.

Food & Nutrition
12
Snohomish Community Food Bank

To provide food and services in a caring and dignified manner to neighbors in need

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Des Moines Area Food Bank; the most unlike its peers is Federal Way Youth Action Team. 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

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 29 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
15/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PIERCE COUNTY: $2,862,675 · OtherPIERCE COUNTYAREA AGENCY ON AGING & DISABILITIES: $1,521,629 · OtherAREA AGENCY ON AGING & DISABILITIESOLYMPIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING LTC: $1,135,120 · OtherOLYMPIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING LTCAGING & ADULT CARE OF CENTRAL WA: $1,087,339 · OtherAGING & ADULT CARE OF CENTRAL WAKITSAP COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE: $813,830 · OtherKITSAP COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICELEWIS MASON THURSTON AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $369,517 · Other+11 more: $351,373 · OtherSPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $2,380,402 · Human ServicesSPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PART…PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $1,206,350 · Human ServicesPEOPLE FOR PEOPLE+6 more: $124,801 · Human ServicesBLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL: $1,227,195 · Food & NutritionBLUE MOUNT…+1 more: $7,317 · Food & NutritionAUBURN FOOD BANK: $20,778 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $13,657 · Philanthropy
Other$8,141,483Human Services$3,711,553Food & Nutrition$1,234,512Philanthropy$34,435

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 budgetSPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS: $2,380,402 over 9y, 2.0% of budgetBLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL: $1,227,195 over 9y, 2.3% of budgetPEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $1,206,350 over 8y, 1.4% of budgetTIMBER RIVER CONNECTIONS: $164,238 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetYOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SEATTLE-KING COUNTY-SNOHOMISH COUNTY: $90,667 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFederal Way Youth Action Team: $72,571 over 1y, 34% of budgetWHITE CENTER EMERGENCY FOOD ASSOCIATION WHITE CENTER FOOD BANK: $20,830 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetAUBURN FOOD BANK: $20,778 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetKENT FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICES: $16,250 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetUNITED WAY WORLDWIDE: $13,657 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDES MOINES AREA FOOD BANK: $8,950 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMAPLE VALLEY FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICES: $8,199 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION OF SKAGIT COUNTY: $7,538 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHIGHLINE AREA FOOD BANK: $7,317 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetDOMESTIC ABUSE WOMEN'S NETWORK: $5,583 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetIMMANUEL COMMUNITY SERVICES: $4,685 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetVASHON MAURY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK: $3,425 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPLATEAU OUTREACH MINISTRIES: $2,566 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetABUSED DEAF WOMEN'S ADVOCACY SERVICES: $2,197 over 1y, 0.1% 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 SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PARTNERS ↗
  • Who funds BLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE ↗
  • Who funds TIMBER RIVER CONNECTIONS ↗
  • Who funds YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SEATTLE-KING COUNTY-SNOHOMISH COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds Federal Way Youth Action Team ↗
  • Who funds WHITE CENTER EMERGENCY FOOD ASSOCIATION WHITE CENTER FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds AUBURN FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds KENT FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY WORLDWIDE ↗
  • Who funds DES MOINES AREA FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds MAPLE VALLEY FOOD BANK AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY ACTION OF SKAGIT COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds HIGHLINE AREA FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds DOMESTIC ABUSE WOMEN'S NETWORK ↗
  • Who funds IMMANUEL COMMUNITY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds VASHON MAURY COMMUNITY FOOD BANK ↗
  • Who funds PLATEAU OUTREACH MINISTRIES ↗
  • Who funds ABUSED DEAF WOMEN'S ADVOCACY SERVICES ↗

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.

Northwest Harvest EmmUnited Way of King Co…Food LifelinePuget Sound Energy Fo…South King County Foo…Seattle FoundationThe Albertsons Compan…Lucky Seven FoundationEmployees Community F…Mightycause Charitabl…Multicare Health Syst…Employees Community F…
Northwest Harvest EmmWA33.9× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Northwest Harvest Emm · United Way of King County · Food Lifeline · Puget Sound Energy Foundation · South King County Food Coalition Skcfc · Seattle Foundation · The Albertsons Companies Foundation · Lucky Seven Foundation · Employees Community Fund of the Boeing Company · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Multicare Health System · Employees Community Fund of Boeing-Puget Sound

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 Multi-Service Center funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Multi-Service Center. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    12report 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 29 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 Multi-Service Center’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