Skip to content
Tioga United Way Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Tioga United Way Inc

Efficiently allocate and organize donations to local charitable organizations.

$173k
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$19k
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 2024.

Human Services$293kYouth Development$226kRecreation & Sports$170kEducation$38kHealth$38kCrime & Legal$20kEnvironment$17kPublic Safety & Disaster$10k
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $110,885, the rows itemized in this filing. The $172,732 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $61,847 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $43k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $67k
$8,890
Median grant
1
States reached
$394k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Tioga County Boys&Girls Club$19,104
Tioga Outreach Center CC$19,000
Camp Ahwaga$16,225
A New Hope Center$13,102
Owego Gymnastics$8,890
Salvation Army$8,500
Spencer Van Etten Community$7,870
Literacy Volunteers of Tioga$7,000
Waterman Conservation$5,694
Owego Elks Lodge #1039$5,500
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 (FY17–24, $92k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%A New Hope Center: $13k → 11%A New Hope Center: $13k → 11%A New Hope Center: $13k → 11%A New Hope Center: $13k → 11%A NEW HOPE CENTER: $13k → 11%A NEW HOPE CENTER: $12k → 11%A NEW HOPE CENTER: $9k → 11%A New Hope Center: $7k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$794k · 16 repeat orgs$17k to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
2

Total granted

$794k
$17k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+52%
+193%

Still filing today

69%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Youth DevelopmentHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsPublic BenefitHealthEnvironmentOther
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

  • TC
    TIOGA COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $162k · revenue +97%
  • AN
    A NEW HOPE CENTER INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $92k · revenue +72%
  • CA
    CAMP AHWAGA ASSOCIATION INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $74k · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • CE
    CANDOR EMERGENCY SQUAD INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $10k · revenue +193%
  • KK
    KALIS KLUBHOUSEgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $7k · revenue +174% · 26% of their budget
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
Boys and Girls Clubs of Binghamton

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.

—
2
Boys and Girls Club of Albany Inc

To provide a safe, fun place where youth are inspired to make healthy, responsible choices.

—
3
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Northwoods Inc

To empower all youth, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.

Youth Development
4
Boys and Girls Club of Syracuse

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

—
5
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Clinch Valley

Provide youth ages 5-17 with character development, leadership skills, education, career guidance, training for healthy habits, and life skills development to help them reach their full potential as caring, productive, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
6
Boys and Girls Club of Glacier Country

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

Youth Development
7
Boys and Girls Club of No Chaut Cou

The boys and girls club of northern chautauqua county, inc. provides educational, job preparation, physical fitness, and social programs for children and young adults.

Youth Development
8
Boys and Girls Clubs of Rochester Inc

Provide personal growth and education, health and physical education and social and recreational services to youth in southwest rochester, ny.

Youth Development
9
Boys & Girls Clubs of Cumberland County

To provide mentoring programs for at risk youth with educational and recreational opportunities that they normally may not be able to experience.

Crime & Legal
10
Boys and Girls Club of Newburgh Inc

To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

Human Services
11
Niagara Falls Boys & Girls Club Inc

Youth services including education/social development, health and physical education

Youth Development
12
Boys' & Girls' Club of Taunton Incorporated

To provide social,athletic, and day care services for youth in the greater taunton area at predetermined rates for qualifying residents.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Rochester; the most unlike its peers is Kalis Klubhouse. 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

14 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. 14 of the 18 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
11/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SALVATION ARMY BUFFALO: $68,750 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY BUFFALOBenevolent & Protective Order of Elks Lodge 1039: $57,100 · OtherBenevolent & Protective Order of Elks Lodge 1039CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER: $52,875 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTERCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER: $44,300 · OtherCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTERGIRL SCOUTS OF NYPENN PATHWAYS INC: $39,000 · OtherGIRL SCOUTS OF NYPENN PATHWAYS INCSpencer Van Etten Community: $34,860 · OtherSpencer Van Etten CommunityCommunity Care Network of Nichols: $30,500 · OtherCommunity Care Network of NicholsBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF THE TWIN TIERS: $13,500 · Other+3 more: $28,675 · Other+3 moreTIOGA COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC: $162,029 · Youth DevelopmentTIOGA COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB IN…CAMP AHWAGA ASSOCIATION INC: $74,225 · Youth DevelopmentCAMP AHWAGA ASSOCIATION INCA NEW HOPE CENTER INC: $92,226 · Human ServicesA NEW HOPE C…THE GIRLS GYMNASTIC-ATHLETIC CLUB OF OWEGO NEW YORK INC: $38,645 · Recreation & SportsLITERACY VOLUNTEERS OF BROOME-TIOGA COUNTIES INC: $37,700 · EducationACCORD A CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION INC: $19,600 · Crime & LegalFRED L WATERMAN CONSERVATION EDUCATION: $17,092 · Environment
Other$369,560Youth Development$236,254Human Services$92,226Recreation & Sports$38,645Education$37,700Crime & Legal$19,600Environment$17,092

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTIOGA COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS CLUB INC: $162,029 over 8y, 7.0% of budgetA NEW HOPE CENTER INC: $92,226 over 8y, 1.3% of budgetCAMP AHWAGA ASSOCIATION INC: $74,225 over 5y, 16% of budgetBenevolent & Protective Order of Elks Lodge 1039: $57,100 over 4y, 19% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER: $52,875 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF NYPENN PATHWAYS INC: $39,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetTHE GIRLS GYMNASTIC-ATHLETIC CLUB OF OWEGO NEW YORK INC: $38,645 over 5y, 3.2% of budgetLITERACY VOLUNTEERS OF BROOME-TIOGA COUNTIES INC: $37,700 over 6y, 3.7% of budgetCommunity Care Network of Nichols: $30,500 over 3y, 6.4% of budgetACCORD A CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION INC: $19,600 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetFRED L WATERMAN CONSERVATION EDUCATION: $17,092 over 3y, 2.5% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF THE TWIN TIERS: $13,500 over 2y, 2.9% of budgetCANDOR EMERGENCY SQUAD INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetKALIS KLUBHOUSE: $7,125 over 1y, 26% 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.

Tioga Downs Regional …The Community Foundat…The Tsb Foundation IncFloyd Hooker Foundati…Julia Zepkowski Memor…American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
Tioga Downs Regional Community Foundation IncNY22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tioga Downs Regional Community Foundation Inc · The Community Foundation for South Central New York Inc · The Tsb Foundation Inc · Floyd Hooker Foundation · Julia Zepkowski Memorial Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Tioga United Way Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tioga United Way Inc. 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%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 Tioga United Way Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Tioga United Way Inc 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 18 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Tioga United Way’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