Skip to content
Riggs Employee's Fund at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Riggs Employee's Fund

Make charitable donations, provide scholarships and other donations as well as provide employee hardship assistance.

$394k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$68k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Food & Nutrition$385kHuman Services$211kHealth$126kYouth Development$67kRecreation & Sports$62kHousing & Shelter$36kCrime & Legal$27kReligion$14k
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $202,671, the rows itemized in this filing. The $394,490 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $191,819 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

  • Under $10k2 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k7 grants · $123k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $68k
$19,811
Median grant
1
States reached
$228k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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, $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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%SAVING GRACE: $6k → 8%FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S SHELTER: $7k → 17%PROJECT ZERO: $7k → 17%CHILDRENS EMERGENCY SHELTER: $6k → 17%PROJECT ZERO: $6k → 17%PROJECT ZERO: $6k → 17%ARKANSAS BAPTIST CHILDRENS HOME: $7k → 17%ARKANSAS BAPTIST CHILDRENS HOME: $6k → 17%PARK: $15k → 17%PARK: $10k → 17%PARK: $8k → 17%PARK: $8k → 17%PARK: $8k → 17%PROJECT ZERO: $22k → 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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$858k · 11 repeat orgs$69k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +75% since the first grant, against +30% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
10

Total granted

$858k
$63k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+75%
+30%

Still filing today

91%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k 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 ServicesHealthYouth DevelopmentHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionCrime & LegalOther
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

  • AF
    ARKANSAS FOODBANK
    7× · 2019–2025 · $385k · revenue +75%
  • DT
    DESTINED TO WINSECOND CHANCE RANCH INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $120k · revenue +173%
  • TM
    THE MAYFLY PROJECT
    7× · 2018–2025 · $61k · revenue +235%

Funded once

  • IB
    IMMANUAL BAPTIST CHURCH
    one grant, 2023 · $8k
  • RM
    RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF ARKANSAS & NORTH LOUISIANA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $7k · revenue +166%
  • FS
    FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2017 · $7k · revenue -73%
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
Northwest Arkansas Children's Shelter in Dba Everhope Arkansas Inc

To provide a safe have, high quality care, and hope for the future to chidren who have been abandoned, abused, or neglected.

Human Services
2
Albuquerque Christian Children's Home Inc

The home provides care for children and wards of the court placed for foster home purposes.

Human Services
3
Searcy Childrens Home Inc Sparrows Promise

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.

—
4
With Friends Inc

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.

Human Services
5
Casa of North Arkansas

The organization and its volunteers serve as advocates for abused and neglected children.

Civil Rights
6
Kids Crossing

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.

Human Services
7
Arizona Baptist Children's Services

To provide hope and care to hurting children and families through christ centered ministries

Human Services
8
Alabama Sheriffs' Youth Ranches Inc

To provide safe stable homes for abandoned, abused, and neglected children in alabama

Human Services
9
Youth Home Inc

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…

Health
10
Nancy K Perry Childrens Shelter

Care of abused and neglected children.

—
11
Dana's House Inc

To provide care for needy children and young adults.

Housing & Shelter
12
Joy Ranch Inc

To provide housing and services to children who are unable to live with their parents or guardians.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fort Smith Children's Emergency Shelter; 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.
04the grantee network

21 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. 21 of the 22 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
15/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ARKANSAS FOODBANK: $384,925 · Food & NutritionARKANSAS FOODBANKDESTINED TO WINSECOND CHANCE RANCH INC: $119,559 · Human ServicesDESTINED TO WINSECOND CHANCE RAN…PARK Foundation Inc: $47,500 · Human ServicesPARK Foundation IncPULASKI COUNTY ADOPTION COALITION INC DBA PROJECT ZERO: $41,250 · Human ServicesPULASKI COUNTY ADOPTION COALITIO…THE CALL: $31,000 · Human ServicesTHE CALLARKANSAS BAPTIST CHILDREN'S HOME & FAMILY MINISTRIES: $12,000 · Human Services+3 more: $18,500 · Human Services+3 moreJOHN 316 MINISTRIES INC: $90,400 · HealthJOHN 316 MI…RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF ARKANSAS & NORTH LOUISIANA INC: $6,500 · HealthRONALD MCDO…THE MAYFLY PROJECT: $61,000 · Youth DevelopmentBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS: $6,000 · Youth DevelopmentIMMERSE: $29,811 · OtherIMMANUAL BAPTIST CHURCH: $7,500 · OtherOUR HOUSE INC: $6,000 · OtherWYNNE BAPTIST CHURCH: $6,000 · OtherUNION RESCUE MISSION: $6,000 · OtherArkansas Sheriffs Youth Ranches Inc: $6,000 · OtherCIVITAN CENTER: $6,000 · OtherCASA OF SALINE COUNTY INC: $27,000 · Crime & LegalCAMP ALDERSGATE INC: $14,000 · Recreation & Sports
Food & Nutrition$384,925Human Services$269,809Health$96,900Youth Development$67,000Other$67,311Crime & Legal$27,000Recreation & Sports$14,000

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 budgetARKANSAS FOODBANK: $384,925 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetDESTINED TO WINSECOND CHANCE RANCH INC: $119,559 over 9y, 1.8% of budgetJOHN 316 MINISTRIES INC: $90,400 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetTHE MAYFLY PROJECT: $61,000 over 7y, 4.4% of budgetPARK Foundation Inc: $47,500 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetPULASKI COUNTY ADOPTION COALITION INC DBA PROJECT ZERO: $41,250 over 4y, 2.5% of budgetTHE CALL: $31,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetCASA OF SALINE COUNTY INC: $27,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetCAMP ALDERSGATE INC: $14,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetARKANSAS BAPTIST CHILDREN'S HOME & FAMILY MINISTRIES: $12,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF ARKANSAS & NORTH LOUISIANA INC: $6,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER FOUNDATION INC: $6,500 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetSAVING GRACE: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCIVITAN CENTER: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOUR HOUSE INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetArkansas Sheriffs Youth Ranches Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER: $6,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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.

Arkansas Community Fo…Arvest FoundationRiggs Benevolent FundNabholz Charitable Fo…Roy and Christine Stu…Windgate Charitable F…C Louis and Mary C Ca…Eric Scott Bottin Fou…Lpr FoundationBrown FoundationHeart of Arkansas Uni…Pure Inc
Arkansas Community Foundation IncAR36.5× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Riggs Employee's Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Riggs Employee's Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    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.

    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 22 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 Riggs Employee'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