Skip to content
Region VI Workforce Investment Board Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Region VI Workforce Investment Board Inc

Provide the framework for workforce preparation and employment system.

$853k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$853k
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.

Employment$9.0M
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$853,463
Median grant
1
States reached
$537k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HRDF INC$853,463
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%PIA JUMP START PROGRAM: $118k → 11%LAUREL BUSINESS INSTITUTE: $16k → 17%WV JUNIOR COLLEGE - BRIDGEPORT: $5k → 15%PIERPONT COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL CENTER: $193k → 15%WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA: $250k → 18%FRED W EBERLE TECHNICAL CENTER: $158k → 19%WEST VIRGINIA WOMEN WORK: $33k → 19%PIA TRUCK DRIVING PROGRAM: $101k → 11%LAUREL BUSINESS INSTITUTE: $15k → 17%UNITED TECHNICAL CENTER: $14k → 15%SOLES ELECTRIC COMPANY: $27k → 15%WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA: $242k → 18%FRED W EBERLE TECHNICAL CENTER: $84k → 19%WEST VIRGINIA WOMEN WORK: $22k → 19%PIA JUMP START PROGRAM: $96k → 11%UNITED TECHNICAL CENTER: $11k → 15%ART AND SCIENCE INSTITUTE OF COSMETOLOGY: $26k → 15%WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA: $235k → 18%WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY: $37k → 19%MONONGALIA COUNTY TECHNICAL ED CTR: $5k → 19%CLARKSBURG BEAUTY ACADEMY: $10k → 15%PIERPONT COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL CENTER: $25k → 15%WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA: $208k → 18%WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY: $12k → 19%HRDF INC: $1.2M → 19%NORTH CENTRAL (WV) OIC: $20k → 15%HRDF INC: $1.1M → 19%NORTH CENTRAL (WV) OIC: $18k → 15%HRDF INC: $1.0M → 19%SOLES ELECTRIC COMPANY: $8k → 15%HRDF INC: $853k → 19%ART AND SCIENCE INSTITUTE OF COSMETOLOGY: $8k → 15%HRDF INC: $803k → 19%HRDF INC: $589k → 19%HRDF INC: $589k → 19%HRDF INC: $568k → 19%HRDF INC: $327k → 19%WV JUNIOR COLLEGE - MORGANTOWN: $12k → 19%WV JUNIOR COLLEGE - MORGANTOWN: $10k → 19%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.0M · 13 repeat orgs$30k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
4

Total granted

$9.0M
$30k

Still filing today

23%
0%

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
EducationEmploymentOther
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

  • HR
    HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $7.0M · revenue -59% · 37% of their budget
  • WW
    WORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA
    4× · 2017–2020 · $934k
  • PI
    PITTSBURGH INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS
    2× · 2017–2018 · $315k · revenue +72%

Funded once

  • CN
    CITY NEON INC
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • CB
    CLARKSBURG BEAUTY ACADEMY
    one grant, 2017 · $10k
  • MC
    MONONGALIA COUNTY SCHOOLS
    one grant, 2017 · $5k
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
04the grantee network

4 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. 4 of the 17 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
3/4
Grantees still filing
2/4
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC: $6,984,902 · EmploymentHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INCWORKFORCE WEST VIRGINIA: $934,333 · OtherWORKFORCE WEST VIRGI…FRED W EBERLE TECHNICAL CENTER: $241,929 · OtherFRED W EBERLE TECHNI…FAIRMONT STATE UNIVERSITY: $217,687 · OtherFAIRMONT STATE UNIVE…+11 more: $263,662 · Other+11 morePITTSBURGH INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS: $314,913 · EducationWEST VIRGINIA WOMEN WORK: $55,212 · Education
Employment$6,984,902Other$1,657,611Education$370,125

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC: $6,984,902 over 9y, 37% of budgetPITTSBURGH INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS: $314,913 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetWEST VIRGINIA WOMEN WORK: $55,212 over 2y, 5.4% of budgetNORTH CENTRAL (WV) OIC: $38,000 over 2y, 5.5% 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 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds PITTSBURGH INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS ↗
  • Who funds WEST VIRGINIA WOMEN WORK ↗
  • Who funds NORTH CENTRAL (WV) OIC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Region VI Workforce Investment Board Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Region VI Workforce Investment Board Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%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 · 0–20%
    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 17 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 Region VI Workforce Investment Board’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