· Public charity
The Degen Foundation
To promote and develop access to and delivery of healthcare services in western arkansas and eastern oklahoma, to improve the quality and availability of healthcare services, to facilitate and promote healthcare education, to aid and support established religious or charitable organizations, and to support and facilitate as a supporting…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 3 grants below total $66,046 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $754,540 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $688,494 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 $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $58k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ARKANSAS COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATION | $46,046 |
| UNITED WAY OF FORT SMITH | $12,000 |
| METHODIST VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING | $8,000 |
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 (FY23–23, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% 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 +4% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2025, 1 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, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k 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
- ACARKANSAS COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATION5× · 2021–2025 · $1.1M · revenue -28%
- CCCrawford-Sebastian Community Development Council Inc4× · 2021–2024 · $81k · revenue +68%
- MNMETHODIST NURSING HOME OF FORT SMITH IN2× · 2024–2025 · $33k · revenue +4%
Funded once
- SRSPARKS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTERone grant, 2021 · $109k · revenue -81% · 70% of their budget
- GSGOOD SAMARITAN CLINICgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +120%
- RMRonald McDonald House Charities of Arkoma Incone grant, 2021 · $21k · revenue -39%
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 quality compassionate behavioral healthcare services to children and families of arkansas through a comprehensive continuum of programs which include residential treatment center care, therapeutic group home care, emergency…
To help individuals recover from alcohol and drug addictions
To support the activities of the fort smith children's emergency shelter, inc. through education and philanthropic activities.
Habilitation and residential services for adults with developmental disabilities
To provide a safe have, high quality care, and hope for the future to chidren who have been abandoned, abused, or neglected.
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Memphis, Inc. sees a world where every family has what they need to ensure the best health outcomes for their children. They provide essential services that remove barriers, strengthen families, and…
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa provides essential services that remove barriers, strengthen families, and promote healing when children need healthcare.
The mission of the community clinic of southwest missouri is to improve the health of people in our community without access to medical, dental, or mental health care.
To provide quality comprehensive and preventative health care to all residents of the arkansas area without regard to their ability to pay.
From conception to birth and beyond, we uphold the sanctity of human life; sharing the gospel of jesus christ, offering knowledge, medical services and support.
Long-term healthcare-the nursing home operates a 90-bed facility that provides long-term healthcare services for the elderly and disabled residents of sharp county arkansas and the surrounding area.
To provide medical care to the uninsured.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Arkansas Colleges of Health Education. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 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. 17 of the 19 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 COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds SPARKS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
- Who funds Crawford-Sebastian Community Development Council Inc ↗
- Who funds METHODIST NURSING HOME OF FORT SMITH IN ↗
- Who funds GOOD SAMARITAN CLINIC ↗
- Who funds Ronald McDonald House Charities of Arkoma Inc ↗
- Who funds CANCER SUPPORT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MONARCH 61 PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds THE GREGORY KISTLER TREATMENT CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF FORT SMITH AREA INC ↗
- Who funds FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE ↗
- Who funds THE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY ↗
- Who funds BOYS SHELTER INC ↗
- Who funds GIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH ↗
- Who funds ABILITIES UNLIMITED OF FORT SMITH INC ↗
- Who funds Fort Smith Children's Service League Inc ↗
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: Arvest Foundation · Walter O Caldwell Foundation · Arkansas Community Foundation Inc · Alline B & Chloe C Davis Charitable Foundation · William Thomas & May Pitman Hennessy Foundation · Rosalie Tilles Childrens Home Inc · Elizabeth H & Stanley E Evans Charitable Foundation · Abb Foundation · Mercy Hospital Fort Smith · United Way of Fort Smith Area Inc · Mercy Health Fort Smith Communities · Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation 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 The Degen Foundation 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 The Degen Foundation?
Find your warmest path to The Degen 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.