Skip to content
Oregon Workforce Partnership at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Oregon Workforce Partnership

Provide leadership through advocacy and collaboration that promotes and advances oregon's workforce system.

$1.4M
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$399k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $45k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $638k
  • $250k+2 grants · $728k
$109,032
Median grant
1
States reached
$913k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
EAST CASCADES WORKS$399,073
EASTERN OREGON WORKFORCE BOARD$329,083
ROGUE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP$168,322
WILLAMETTE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP$148,704
NORTHWEST OREGON WORKS$109,032
LANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP$97,596
CLACKAMAS WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP$60,787
SOUTHWESTERN OREGON WORKFORCE$53,554
WORKSYSTEMS$44,536
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 (FY25–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 67% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CLACKAMAS WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $61k → 8%EAST CASCADES WORKS: $399k → 10%WORKSYSTEMS: $45k → 12%ROGUE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $168k → 13%WILLAMETTE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $149k → 14%EASTERN OREGON WORKFORCE BOARD: $329k → 15%LANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $98k → 15%NORTHWEST OREGON WORKS: $109k → 16%SOUTHWESTERN OREGON WORKFORCE: $54k → 17%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

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
Southwest Washington Workforce Development Council

Swwdc's mission is to prepare and promote a skilled and adaptive workforce for a thriving economy in southwest washington. swwdc and its community partners provide job search assistance, education and training to individuals and assist…

Philanthropy
2
Regional Workforce Collaborative - Swpa

To provide policy guidance, technical assistance, and program oversight for the city of pittsburgh and allegheny county, and to assist in the economic development of southwestern pa region.

Community Improvement
3
Coastal Counties Workforce Inc

To oversee and manage regional Federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programming. CCWI performs the functions of the regional workforce board and applies for/obtains additional funding for our region with the mission of…

Employment
4
Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board Inc

EWIB efficiently coordinates employment-related services in concert with a multitude of state and local agencies at benefit to both businesses and job-seekers. These services offer new opportunities and/or skills to the regional workforce,…

Employment
5
Workforce Network Inc

Workforce network, inc has a mission to establish a career pathway system to cultivate skilled workers in the industry sectors driving economic prosperity in the highland lakes area.

Religion
6
Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board Inc

The northwest wisconsin workforce investment board (nwwib) will create, and continue to improve, an innovative and quality strategic direction for the regional workforce development system.

Public Benefit
7
Southwest Wisconsin Workforce Development Board Inc

Provide a collaborative talent development system within the region.

Public Benefit
8
Greater New Bedford Workforce Investment Board Inc

Meet the workforce needs of employers and support economic development in greater new bedford.

Community Improvement
9
Oregon Workforce Partnership

Provide leadership through advocacy and collaboration that promotes and advances oregon's workforce system.

Public Benefit
10
Northwest Regional Workforce Investment Board Inc

Northwest regional workforce investment board, inc is a not-for-profit corporation organized to develop and oversee a complete system of services for the employment and training of connecticut's workforce, concentrating in danbury,…

—
11
Workforce Development Council Snohomish County

Workforce snohomish invests government and private funding to continuously increase the global competitiveness and prosperity of our businesses and workforce, to fill current and emerging jobs, and to provide full employment. our…

Education
12
Washington Workforce Association

To provide promotion of social welfare in the field of workforce development for the unemployed and underemployed.

Employment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Oregon Northwest Workforce Investment Board; the most unlike its peers is Worksystems Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
03the 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.

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
0/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

EAST CASCADES WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD: $399,073 · EmploymentEAST CASCADES WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDROGUE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $168,322 · EmploymentROGUE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIPWILLAMETTE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $148,704 · EmploymentWILLAMETTE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIPOregon Northwest Workforce Investment Board: $109,032 · EmploymentOregon Northwest Workforce Investment BoardWORKFORCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY: $60,787 · EmploymentWORKFORCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL OF CLACKAMAS COUNTYSOUTHWESTERN OREGON WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD: $53,554 · EmploymentSOUTHWESTERN OREGON WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDWorksystems Inc: $44,536 · EmploymentEASTERN OREGON WORKFORCE BOARD: $329,083 · Community ImprovementEASTERN OREGON WORKFORCE B…LANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $97,596 · Other
Employment$984,008Community Improvement$329,083Other$97,596

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 budgetEAST CASCADES WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD: $399,073 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetEASTERN OREGON WORKFORCE BOARD: $329,083 over 1y, 8.1% of budgetROGUE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $168,322 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetWILLAMETTE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $148,704 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetOregon Northwest Workforce Investment Board: $109,032 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetLANE WORKFORCE PARTNERSHIP: $97,596 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetWORKFORCE INVESTMENT COUNCIL OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY: $60,787 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetSOUTHWESTERN OREGON WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD: $53,554 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetWorksystems Inc: $44,536 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.

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.

Willamette Workforce …The Ford Family Found…The Oregon Community …
Willamette Workforce PartnershipOR17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Willamette Workforce Partnership · The Ford Family Foundation · The Oregon Community 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 Oregon Workforce Partnership funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oregon Workforce Partnership. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’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 →median 84%
  • East Cascades Workforce Investment Board: 100% of income from government
  • Rogue Workforce Partnership: 94% of income from government
  • Oregon Northwest Workforce Investment Board: 84% of income from government
  • Workforce Investment Council of Clackamas County: 84% of income from government
  • Eastern Oregon Workforce Board: 83% of income from government
  • Lane Workforce Partnership: 79% of income from government
  • Worksystems Inc: 52% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
7rely 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 9 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 Oregon Workforce Partnership’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