Skip to content
South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs Progress Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs Progress Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$76k
Granted FY2025still arriving
23
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0190% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Human Services$196kReligion$8kYouth Development$7kRecreation & Sports$5kPublic Benefit$5kArts & Culture$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$475k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$8,000
WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE$6,000
CHAPIN WOMENS CLUB$6,000
Individual grant recipient$4,500
WOMANS CLUB OF BATESBURG LEESVILLE$4,000
LAKE MURRAY IRMO WC$4,000
PALMETTO WOMANS CLUB$4,000
WC OF ROCK HILL$4,000
YORK COUNTY WOMANS CLUB$4,000
WOMANS CLUB OF LOW COUNTRY$3,990
LEXINGTON WOMANS CLUB$3,500
UPSTATE WOMANS CLUB$3,500
ST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB$3,500
N MYRTLE BEACH WC$3,000
Individual grant recipient$2,570
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 75% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%YORK COUNTY WOMANS CLUB: $2k → 8%WOMANS CLUB OF LOW COUNTRY: $5k → 10%GREENVILLE WC: $2k → 10%ST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB: $4k → 11%UPSTATE WOMANS CLUB: $4k → 16%ST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB: $5k → 16%BELVEDERE WOMANS CLUB: $2k → 17%YORK COUNTY WOMANS CLUB: $2k → 8%WOMANS CLUB OF LOW COUNTRY: $4k → 10%LAKE MURRAY IRMO WC: $4k → 11%UPSTATE WOMANS CLUB: $3k → 16%ST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB: $4k → 16%WOMANS CLUB OF ROCK HILL: $5k → 8%WOMANS CLUB OF LOW COUNTRY: $3k → 10%WOMANS CLUB OF GREENVILLE: $3k → 10%ST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB: $3k → 11%UPSTATE WOMANS CLUB: $2k → 16%ST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB: $3k → 16%WALHALLA WOMANS CLUB: $3k → 17%WOMANS CLUB OF ROCK HILL: $5k → 8%GFWC-SC HEADQUARTERS: $8k → 16%WC OF ROCK HILL: $4k → 8%GFWC - SC HEADQUARTERS: $5k → 16%AIKEN WC: $5k → 17%YORK COUNTY WOMANS CLUB: $4k → 8%WOMANS CLUB OF MIDLANDS: $3k → 11%PALMETTO WOMANS CLUB: $4k → 16%AIKEN WC: $4k → 17%WC OF ROCK HILL: $3k → 8%WOMANS CLUB OF MIDLANDS: $3k → 11%PALMETTO WOMANS CLUB: $3k → 16%YORK COUNTY WOMANS CLUB: $3k → 8%GFWC-SC-HEADQUARTERS: $3k → 16%JR WC OF COLUMBIA: $3k → 16%PINERIDGE WC: $3k → 11%PINERIDGE WOMAN'S CLUB: $2k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE: $6k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE: $4k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE: $4k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE: $4k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE: $3k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF BATESBURG LEESVILLE: $4k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF BATESBURG LEESVILLE: $3k → 11%WOMANS CLUB OF BATESBURG LEESVILLE: $2k → 11%CHAPIN WOMENS CLUB: $6k → 11%CHAPIN WOMAN'S CLUB: $5k → 11%CHAPIN WOMENS CLUB: $5k → 11%CHAPIN WOMENS CLUB: $3k → 11%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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$232k · 25 repeat orgs$25k to everyone else

25 repeat relationships: 20 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

25
12

Total granted

$232k
$20k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-2%
+22%

Still filing today

4%
8%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time
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

  • WC
    WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE
    5× · 2021–2025 · $20k
  • SA
    ST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB
    5× · 2021–2025 · $19k
  • CW
    CHAPIN WOMENS CLUB
    4× · 2021–2025 · $16k

Funded once

  • GF
    GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    one grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue +22%
  • WC
    WOMANS CLUB OF GREENVILLE
    one grant, 2021 · $3k
  • PW
    PINERIDGE WOMAN'S CLUB
    one grant, 2024 · $2k
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

2 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2019–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2019 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 2 of the 40 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
2/2
Grantees still filing
1/2
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WOMANS CLUB OF CAYCE: $19,600 · OtherWOMANS CLUB OF CAYCEST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUB: $18,665 · OtherST ANDREWS WOMANS CLUBCHAPIN WOMENS CLUB: $16,000 · OtherCHAPIN WOMENS CLUBIndividual grant recipient: $15,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWOMANS CLUB OF LOW COUNTRY: $14,990 · OtherWOMANS CLUB OF LOW COUNTRYWOMANS CLUB OF BATESBURG LEESVILLE: $12,700 · OtherLEXINGTON WOMANS CLUB: $12,700 · OtherPALMETTO WOMANS CLUB: $11,800 · OtherYORK COUNTY WOMANS CLUB: $11,000 · OtherUPSTATE WOMANS CLUB: $10,900 · OtherGENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS OF SOUTH CAROLINA (Womans Club of Rock H ill): $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $9,150 · OtherSAND RIVER WOMANS CLUB: $8,800 · Other+27 more: $85,232 · Other+27 more
Other$257,037

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

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS OF SOUTH CAROLINA: $5,000 over 1y, 8.2% 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 GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS OF SOUTH CAROLINA (Womans Club of Rock H ill) ↗
  • Who funds GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS OF SOUTH CAROLINA ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs Progress Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs Progress Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%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
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY21–25
    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 South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs Progress Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs Progress Foundation 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 40 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-PF 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 South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs Progress’ 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