Skip to content
South Central Workforce Development Council at a glance

· Public charity

South Central Workforce Development Council

Foster an inclusive and skilled workforce by increasing opportunities to employment, benefiting both individuals and employers.

$13M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$11M
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Employment$39MCommunity Improvement$1.5MHuman Services$737k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 7 grants below total $12,977,309, the rows itemized in this filing. The $13,368,766 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $391,457 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

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $39k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $54k
  • $250k+5 grants · $13M
$337,654
Median grant
1
States reached
$6.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
People for People$10,677,510
Spokane Area WDC$1,069,982
Yakima Valley Community Foundation$535,418
Yakima County Development Association$337,654
AMJTC$263,232
OIC of Washington$54,346
Baldoz Professional Services$39,167
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 (FY21–25, $38.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%People for People: $7.0M → 17%People for People: $10.7M → 17%People for People: $7.7M → 17%People for People: $6.4M → 17%People for People: $6.3M → 17%OIC of Washington: $54k → 17%OIC of Washington: $5k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$41M · 7 repeat orgs$10k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$41M
$10k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+50%
+228%

Still filing today

86%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEmploymentCommunity ImprovementHealthOther
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

  • PF
    PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE
    5× · 2021–2025 · $38M · revenue +51% · 30% of their budget
  • SA
    SPOKANE AREA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    2× · 2024–2025 · $1.5M · revenue +40%
  • YV
    YAKIMA VALLEY FARM WORKERS CLINIC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $332k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • WW
    WASHINGTON WORKFORCE ASSOCIATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue +228%
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
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
Yakima County Development Association

Enhance the income, quality of life and employment stability of yakima country residents by retaining, expanding, and recruiting business and industry.

—
3
East Cascades Workforce Investment Board

The east cascades workforce investment board supports the talent needs of employers, and maximizes and aligns investments in the career goals of individuals to fuel a thriving economy.

Employment
4
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
5
Eastern Oregon Workforce Board

To coordinate the resources need to help employers succeed and individuals to advance through innovation and partnerships.

Community Improvement
6
Young Womens Christian Association

The ywca is dedicated to eliminating racism and empowering women.

Human Services
7
Association of Washington Cities

The association of washington cities builds connections between our state's diverse cities and towns, while providing our members with the support needed to thrive through delivery of data-driven education, nationally recognized pooling…

—
8
Washington Vocational Services

To provide job development, job seeking skills and job placement for persons with disabilities. we are dedicated to providing outstanding quality services that result in successful community involvement and employment for persons with…

Employment
9
Pacific Mountain Workforce Development Council

PacMtn develops and implements the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific and Thurston Counties. This involves employment and training services for job seekers, provides 'one-stop' services…

Human Services
10
Washington Area Community Investment Fund Inc

The washington area community investment fund (wacif) is a nonprofit community loan fund focused on increasing equity and economic opportunity in the washington, dc area's underserved communities. wacif's mission is driven is driven by…

—
11
Whatcom Dispute Resolution Center

Provide and promote constructive and collaborative approaches to conflict resolution through mediation, training, facilitation, supervised visits and community education.

Unclassified
12
Cowlitz Economic Development Council

Foster Growth in the Community

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Yakima Valley Community Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Aerospace Machinists Joint Training Comm. 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

8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $38,099,458 · Human ServicesPEOPLE FOR PEOPLE+1 more: $59,711 · Human ServicesSPOKANE AREA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $1,498,761 · Community ImprovementYAKIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION dba NEW VISION FOUNDATION: $516,900 · Community ImprovementYAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $557,442 · PhilanthropyAEROSPACE MACHINISTS JOINT TRAINING COMM: $328,194 · Employment+1 more: $10,000 · EmploymentYAKIMA VALLEY FARM WORKERS CLINIC: $332,254 · HealthBaldoz Professional Services: $197,492 · Other
Human Services$38,159,169Community Improvement$2,015,661Philanthropy$557,442Employment$338,194Health$332,254Other$197,492

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPEOPLE FOR PEOPLE: $38,099,458 over 5y, 30% of budgetSPOKANE AREA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $1,498,761 over 2y, 8.7% of budgetYAKIMA VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $557,442 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetYAKIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION dba NEW VISION FOUNDATION: $516,900 over 2y, 13% of budgetYAKIMA VALLEY FARM WORKERS CLINIC: $332,254 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAEROSPACE MACHINISTS JOINT TRAINING COMM: $328,194 over 2y, 4.7% of budgetOPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER OF WASHINGTON: $59,711 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWASHINGTON WORKFORCE ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 3.0% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

American Online Givin…
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE5.8× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation 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 South Central Workforce Development Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from South Central Workforce Development Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%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 · 0–50%
    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 South Central Workforce Development Council’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