Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

United Way of Fort Smith Area Inc

To improve lives by uniting people and resources in our six county area.

$1.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
30
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$194k
Largest
01What you fund
0198% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172024.

Youth Development$5.0MHuman Services$3.5MHealth$1.5MEducation$656kFood & Nutrition$515kHousing & Shelter$448kReligion$348kCommunity Improvement$294kOther$0
02FY2024 · 30 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k21 grants · $509k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $863k
$31,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FORT SMITH BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB$194,000
COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHO$188,500
GIRLS INC$104,500
LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER$100,000
CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER$61,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE DIAMOND HI$60,000
FORT SMITH BOYS HOME$52,500
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VAN BUREN$52,000
NEXT STEP HOMELESS SERVICES$50,000
HARBORGATEWAY HOUSE$43,000
COMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC$40,000
GIRLS SHELTER OF FORT SMITH$37,512
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOG$34,000
THE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY$32,800
SEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIAT$31,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $799k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 16%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 16%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $106k → 17%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $101k → 17%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $100k → 17%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $100k → 17%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $100k → 17%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $99k → 17%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $98k → 17%LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER: $95k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$12M · 36 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

36 repeat relationships — 30 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

36
0

Total granted

$12M
$0

Still filing today

47%
0%

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 ServicesReligionFood & NutritionCommunity ImprovementEmploymentOther

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

  • FS
    FORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +90%
  • CS
    COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $1.6M · revenue +1% · 25% of their budget
  • GI
    GIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH
    8× · 2017–2024 · $877k · revenue +14%

Funded once

    Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Your field

    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.

    1
    Boys & Girls Club of the Arkansas River Valley Inc

    Promoting the health, social, education, and character development of youth

    Youth Development
    2
    Boys & Girls Club of Las Cruces

    Recreation youth development

    Youth Development
    3
    Boys & Girls Club of Jackson Co

    Youth services

    Youth Development
    4
    Boys & Girls Clubs of Harrison County Inc

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

    Youth Development
    5
    Boys & Girls Club of Southwest Alabama Inc

    The boys and girls club of southwest alabama actively works with local youth of all backgrounds to develop the qualities needed to become responsible citizens and future leaders in our community.

    Youth Development
    6
    Boys and Girls Club of Bartlesville

    To enable our young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their potential.

    Youth Development
    7
    Boys and Girls Club of Dawson County

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

    8
    Boys and Girls Clubs of Siouxland Inc

    To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

    Youth Development
    9
    Boys & Girls Club of Fredericksburg

    Ensure that children have a safe place to go after school.

    10
    Boys & Girls Club of Valdosta Inc

    Providing educational and recreational programs for children.

    Youth Development
    11
    Boys and Girls Club of Central Arkansas

    Boys and girls club promotes physical, mental and moral welfare of boys and girls of central arkansas by providing a means of education, entertainment and physical activities most likely to achieve these goals.

    Youth Development
    12
    Boys & Girls Club of Hobbs Inc

    To provide youth activities and education

    Youth Development

    For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fort Smith Boys & Girls Clubs and the most unlike its peers is South Sebastian County Boys & Girls. 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

    19 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 36 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.

    4
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    7
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    17/19
    Grantees still filing
    13/19
    Grew since you first funded

    Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

    COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE — $1,556,984 · OtherCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSECRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER INC — $545,496 · OtherCRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER INCHARBOR HOUSE INC OF FORT SMITH — $462,000 · OtherHARBOR HOUSE INC OF FORT SMITHBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VAN BUREN — $421,420 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VAN BURENBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PARIS INC — $350,500 · OtherGIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH — $345,364 · OtherCOMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC — $317,186 · OtherTHE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY — $303,600 · OtherBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 16 WESTARK AREA COUNCIL — $288,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMY — $286,900 · OtherGIRL SCOUNTS-DIAMONDS OF AR — $277,000 · OtherLITERACY COUNCIL OF WESTERN ARKANSAS INC — $242,500 · Other+13 more — $1,607,510 · Other+13 moreFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS — $1,647,736 · Youth DevelopmentFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBSGIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH — $877,000 · Youth DevelopmentGIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SM…BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOGAN COUNTY — $269,800 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LO…BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE COUNTY — $197,748 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE …SOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS — $197,540 · Youth DevelopmentSOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS &…LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER INC — $799,400 · Human ServicesNEXT STEP DAY ROOM INC D/B/A NEXT STEP DAY ROOM — $347,916 · ReligionSEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION — $330,000 · Food & NutritionBOYS SHELTER INC — $294,432 · Community ImprovementABILITIES UNLIMITED INC — $211,000 · EmploymentPROJECT COMPASSION INC — $196,000 · Health
    Other$7,004,460Youth Development$3,189,824Human Services$799,400Religion$347,916Food & Nutrition$330,000Community Improvement$294,432Employment$211,000Health$196,000

    Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS — $1,647,736 over 8y, 15% of budgetCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE — $1,556,984 over 8y, 25% of budgetGIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH — $877,000 over 8y, 24% of budgetLINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER INC — $799,400 over 8y, 13% of budgetCRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER INC — $545,496 over 8y, 9.4% of budgetHARBOR HOUSE INC OF FORT SMITH — $462,000 over 8y, 2.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PARIS INC — $350,500 over 8y, 23% of budgetNEXT STEP DAY ROOM INC D/B/A NEXT STEP DAY ROOM — $347,916 over 6y, 11% of budgetGIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH — $345,364 over 8y, 23% of budgetSEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION — $330,000 over 8y, 3.2% of budgetTHE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY — $303,600 over 8y, 44% of budgetBOYS SHELTER INC — $294,432 over 6y, 16% of budgetBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 16 WESTARK AREA COUNCIL — $288,000 over 8y, 4.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOGAN COUNTY — $269,800 over 8y, 19% of budgetLITERACY COUNCIL OF WESTERN ARKANSAS INC — $242,500 over 8y, 41% of budgetABILITIES UNLIMITED INC — $211,000 over 8y, 2.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE COUNTY — $197,748 over 8y, 17% of budgetSOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS — $197,540 over 8y, 16% of budgetPROJECT COMPASSION INC — $196,000 over 8y, 26% of budget
    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 FORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS
    • Who funds COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE
    • Who funds GIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH
    • Who funds LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER INC
    • Who funds CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER INC
    • Who funds HARBOR HOUSE INC OF FORT SMITH
    • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PARIS INC
    • Who funds NEXT STEP DAY ROOM INC D/B/A NEXT STEP DAY ROOM
    • Who funds GIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH
    • Who funds SEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
    • Who funds THE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY
    • Who funds BOYS SHELTER INC
    • Who funds BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 16 WESTARK AREA COUNCIL
    • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOGAN COUNTY
    • Who funds LITERACY COUNCIL OF WESTERN ARKANSAS INC
    • Who funds ABILITIES UNLIMITED INC
    • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE COUNTY
    • Who funds SOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS
    • Who funds PROJECT COMPASSION 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.

    Alline B & Chloe C Davis Charitable FoundationAR24.2× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Alline B & Chloe C Davis Charitable Foundation · Elizabeth H & Stanley E Evans Charitable Foundation · William Thomas & May Pitman Hennessy Foundation · Walter O Caldwell Foundation · Arvest Foundation · Abb Foundation · Arkansas Community Foundation Inc · Rosalie Tilles Childrens Home Inc · The Degen Foundation · Cadence Bank Foundation · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · Boys & Girls Clubs of America

    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 United Way of Fort Smith Area Inc 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.

    2024
    202122232425
    no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%your share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
      typical government reliance, FY2025

      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.

      On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 36 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

      Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      More from the funding graph