· Public charity
Riggs Employee's Fund
Make charitable donations, provide scholarships and other donations as well as provide employee hardship assistance.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $202,671 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $394,490 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $191,819 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $12k
- $10k–50k7 grants · $123k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $68k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ARKANSAS FOOD BANK | $67,860 |
| PROJECT ZERO | $22,000 |
| CASA | $21,000 |
| JOHN 316 MINISTRIES | $21,000 |
| IMMERSE | $19,811 |
| PARK | $15,000 |
| SECOND CHANCE RANCH | $14,000 |
| THE MAYFLY PROJECT | $10,000 |
| CAMP ALDERSGATE | $6,000 |
| BIG BROTHERS AND BIG SISTERS | $6,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $119k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 95% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +75% since the first grant, against +4% for the ones you funded once.
11 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- AFARKANSAS FOODBANK7× · 2019–2025 · $385k · revenue +75%
- DTDESTINED TO WINSECOND CHANCE RANCH INC9× · 2017–2025 · $120k · revenue +173%
- TMTHE MAYFLY PROJECT7× · 2018–2025 · $61k · revenue +235%
Funded once
- IBIMMANUAL BAPTIST CHURCHone grant, 2023 · $8k
- RMRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF ARKANSAS & NORTH LOUISIANA INCone grant, 2024 · $7k · revenue 0%
- FSFORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2017 · $7k · revenue -73%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To provide a safe have, high quality care, and hope for the future to chidren who have been abandoned, abused, or neglected.
The home provides care for children and wards of the court placed for foster home purposes.
Providing hope for children and families in the arkansas child welfare system provide foster care, supervised visitation services, a safe space for children to rest while waiting on a foster family and training for foster families.
A shelter for neglected, abused, troubled and other "at risk- or runaway children and youth offering shelter, safety, education, and counseling until ready to return to society.
The organization and its volunteers serve as advocates for abused and neglected children.
Kids crossing's vision is to provide a safe and caring home for every child. our mission is to strengthen families so they may provide the best care for those children entrusted to them.
To provide hope and care to hurting children and families through christ centered ministries
To provide safe stable homes for abandoned, abused, and neglected children in alabama
To equip and empower youth, adults, and families to become healthier and contributing members of the community by providing compassionate emotional and behavioral intensive residential treatment & qualified residential treatment for ages…
Care of abused and neglected children.
To provide care for needy children and young adults.
To provide housing and services to children who are unable to live with their parents or guardians.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fort Smith Children's Emergency Shelter and the most unlike its peers is John 316 Ministries Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 22 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds ARKANSAS FOODBANK ↗
- Who funds DESTINED TO WINSECOND CHANCE RANCH INC ↗
- Who funds JOHN 316 MINISTRIES INC ↗
- Who funds THE MAYFLY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds PARK Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds PULASKI COUNTY ADOPTION COALITION INC DBA PROJECT ZERO ↗
- Who funds THE CALL ↗
- Who funds CASA OF SALINE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds CAMP ALDERSGATE INC ↗
- Who funds ARKANSAS BAPTIST CHILDREN'S HOME & FAMILY MINISTRIES ↗
- Who funds RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF ARKANSAS & NORTH LOUISIANA INC ↗
- Who funds FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS ↗
- Who funds UNION RESCUE MISSION ↗
- Who funds FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER ↗
- Who funds CIVITAN CENTER ↗
- Who funds OUR HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds Arkansas Sheriffs Youth Ranches Inc ↗
- Who funds SAVING GRACE ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Arkansas Community Foundation Inc · Arvest Foundation · Riggs Benevolent Fund · Nabholz Charitable Foundation · Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable And · Windgate Charitable Foundation Inc · C Louis and Mary C Cabe Foundation · Eric Scott Bottin Foundation · Lpr Foundation · Brown Foundation · Heart of Arkansas United Way · Pure Inc
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Riggs Employee's Fund funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Riggs Employee's Fund?
Find your warmest path to Riggs Employee's Fund through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.