Skip to content
The Degen Foundation at a glance

· 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…

$755k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$46k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Education$1.1MHealth$273kHuman Services$48kCommunity Improvement$26kArts & Culture$15kPhilanthropy$12kReligion$10kHousing & Shelter$6k
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $66,046, the rows itemized in this filing. The $754,540 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $688,494 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 $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $58k
$12,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ARKANSAS COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATION$46,046
UNITED WAY OF FORT SMITH$12,000
METHODIST VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING$8,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%ABILITIES UNLIMITED: $6k → 16%FORT SMITH CHILDREN'S SHELTER: $9k → 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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 3 repeat orgs$276k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +4% since the first grant, against 0% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
15

Total granted

$1.2M
$264k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+4%
0%

Still filing today

100%
87%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 82% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $12k 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
HealthCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesEducationPhilanthropyOther
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

  • AC
    ARKANSAS COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $1.1M · revenue -28%
  • CC
    Crawford-Sebastian Community Development Council Inc
    4× · 2021–2024 · $81k · revenue +54%
  • MN
    METHODIST NURSING HOME OF FORT SMITH IN
    2× · 2024–2025 · $33k · revenue +4%

Funded once

  • SR
    SPARKS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2021 · $109k · revenue -81% · 70% of their budget
  • GS
    GOOD SAMARITAN CLINICgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +59%
  • RM
    Ronald McDonald House Charities of Arkoma Inc
    one grant, 2021 · $21k · revenue -39%
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
United Methodist Children's Home

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…

Human Services
2
Harbor House Inc of Fort Smith

To help individuals recover from alcohol and drug addictions

—
3
Fort Smith Children's Emergency Shelter Foundation Inc

To support the activities of the fort smith children's emergency shelter, inc. through education and philanthropic activities.

Human Services
4
The Arkansas Center for Independence

Habilitation and residential services for adults with developmental disabilities

Human Services
5
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
6
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Memphis Inc

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…

Health
7
Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa

Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa provides essential services that remove barriers, strengthen families, and promote healing when children need healthcare.

—
8
Community Clinic of Southwest Missouri

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.

—
9
River Valley Primary Care Services

To provide quality comprehensive and preventative health care to all residents of the arkansas area without regard to their ability to pay.

Health
10
Fort Smith Christian Family Servicesinc

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.

Human Services
11
Cave City Nursing Home

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.

—
12
Christian Community Care Clinic

To provide medical care to the uninsured.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cancer Support Foundation; 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.
04the grantee network

17 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. 17 of the 19 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)
17/17
Grantees still filing
7/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ARKANSAS COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATION: $1,068,446 · EducationARKANSAS COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATIONSPARKS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: $109,350 · HealthSPARKS REGIONA…METHODIST NURSING HOME OF FORT SMITH IN: $33,000 · HealthMETHODIST NURS…GOOD SAMARITAN CLINIC: $25,000 · HealthGOOD SAMARITAN…THE GREGORY KISTLER TREATMENT CENTER INC: $14,942 · HealthTHE GREGORY KI…Ronald McDonald House Charities of Arkoma Inc: $20,783 · OtherCANCER SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $17,788 · OtherMONARCH 61 PROJECT INC: $15,000 · OtherGOSPEL RESCUE MISSION: $10,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE: $7,800 · OtherTHE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY: $6,250 · OtherGIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH: $6,250 · OtherFort Smith Children's Service League Inc: $5,000 · OtherFORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER: $5,000 · OtherCrawford-Sebastian Community Development Council Inc: $81,237 · Community ImprovementBOYS SHELTER INC: $6,250 · Community ImprovementFORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER: $8,500 · Human ServicesABILITIES UNLIMITED OF FORT SMITH INC: $6,250 · Human ServicesUNITED WAY OF FORT SMITH AREA INC: $12,000 · Philanthropy
Education$1,068,446Health$182,292Other$93,871Community Improvement$87,487Human Services$14,750Philanthropy$12,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetARKANSAS COLLEGES OF HEALTH EDUCATION: $1,068,446 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetSPARKS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: $109,350 over 1y, 70% of budgetCrawford-Sebastian Community Development Council Inc: $81,237 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMETHODIST NURSING HOME OF FORT SMITH IN: $33,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGOOD SAMARITAN CLINIC: $25,000 over 1y, 3.5% of budgetRonald McDonald House Charities of Arkoma Inc: $20,783 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetCANCER SUPPORT FOUNDATION: $17,788 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetMONARCH 61 PROJECT INC: $15,000 over 1y, 7.9% of budgetTHE GREGORY KISTLER TREATMENT CENTER INC: $14,942 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED WAY OF FORT SMITH AREA INC: $12,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFORT SMITH CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY SHELTER: $8,500 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE: $7,800 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTHE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY: $6,250 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetBOYS SHELTER INC: $6,250 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetGIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH: $6,250 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetABILITIES UNLIMITED OF FORT SMITH INC: $6,250 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFort Smith Children's Service League Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 10% 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.

Arvest FoundationWalter O Caldwell Fou…Arkansas Community Fo…Alline B & Chloe C Da…William Thomas & May …Rosalie Tilles Childr…Elizabeth H & Stanley…Abb FoundationMercy Hospital Fort S…United Way of Fort Sm…Mercy Health Fort Smi…Delta Dental of Arkan…
Arvest FoundationAR25.3× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 The Degen Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Degen Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 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.

    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 19 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 Degen’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