Skip to content
United Way of Fort Smith Area Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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 FY2025still arriving
29
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$194k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Youth Development$5.0MHuman Services$3.5MHealth$1.5MEducation$656kFood & Nutrition$515kHousing & Shelter$448kReligion$348kCommunity Improvement$294kOther$0
02FY2025 · 29 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k20 grants · $488k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $864k
$31,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$15M
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$62,000
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
COMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC$41,000
HARBORGATEWAY HOUSE$41,000
GIRLS SHELTER OF FORT SMITH$37,512
THE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY$34,000
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOG$32,800
SEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIAT$31,000
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 (FY17–25, $899k) 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 its 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: $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
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.
$14M · 36 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

36 repeat relationships: 29 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

36
0

Total granted

$14M
$0

Still filing today

47%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Youth DevelopmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionReligionCommunity ImprovementEmploymentOther
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

  • FS
    FORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +90%
  • CS
    COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.7M · revenue +1% · 25% of their budget
  • GI
    GIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH
    9× · 2017–2025 · $982k · revenue +14%

Funded once

    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 & Girls Club of Las Cruces

    Recreation youth development

    Youth Development
    2
    Boys & Girls Club of Jackson Co

    Youth services

    Youth Development
    3
    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
    4
    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
    5
    Boys and Girls Club of Bartlesville

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

    Youth Development
    6
    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

    —
    7
    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
    8
    Boys & Girls Club of Fredericksburg

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

    —
    9
    Boys & Girls Club of Valdosta Inc

    Providing educational and recreational programs for children.

    Youth Development
    10
    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
    11
    Boys & Girls Club of Hobbs Inc

    To provide youth activities and education

    Youth Development
    12
    Boys & Girls Club of Somerset County Inc

    To provide behavior guidance and to promote the health, education, vocational, recreational, and character development of youth.

    —
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fort Smith Boys & Girls Clubs; 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 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. 19 of the 36 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.

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

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    COMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE: $1,745,484 · OtherCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSECRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER INC: $607,496 · OtherCRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER INCHARBOR HOUSE INC OF FORT SMITH: $503,000 · OtherHARBOR HOUSE INC OF FORT SMITHBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VAN BUREN: $473,420 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF VAN BURENBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PARIS INC: $410,500 · OtherGIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH: $382,876 · OtherCOMMUNITY DENTAL CLINIC: $358,186 · OtherTHE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY: $337,600 · OtherSALVATION ARMY: $316,400 · OtherBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 16 WESTARK AREA COUNCIL: $303,000 · OtherGIRL SCOUNTS-DIAMONDS OF AR: $295,000 · OtherLITERACY COUNCIL OF WESTERN ARKANSAS INC: $270,000 · Other+13 more: $1,801,010 · Other+13 moreFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $1,841,736 · Youth DevelopmentFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBSGIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH: $981,500 · Youth DevelopmentGIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SM…BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOGAN COUNTY: $302,600 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LO…BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE COUNTY: $224,748 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE …SOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS: $212,540 · Youth DevelopmentSOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS &…LINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER INC: $899,400 · Human ServicesSEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION: $361,000 · Food & NutritionNEXT STEP DAY ROOM INC D/B/A NEXT STEP DAY ROOM: $347,916 · ReligionBOYS SHELTER INC: $294,432 · Community ImprovementABILITIES UNLIMITED INC: $234,000 · EmploymentPROJECT COMPASSION INC: $221,000 · Health
    Other$7,803,972Youth Development$3,563,124Human Services$899,400Food & Nutrition$361,000Religion$347,916Community Improvement$294,432Employment$234,000Health$221,000

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

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFORT SMITH BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS: $1,841,736 over 9y, 15% of budgetCOMMUNITY SERVICES CLEARINGHOUSE: $1,745,484 over 9y, 25% of budgetGIRLS INCORPORATED OF FORT SMITH: $981,500 over 9y, 24% of budgetLINCOLN CHILDCARE CENTER INC: $899,400 over 9y, 13% of budgetCRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER INC: $607,496 over 9y, 9.4% of budgetHARBOR HOUSE INC OF FORT SMITH: $503,000 over 9y, 2.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PARIS INC: $410,500 over 9y, 23% of budgetGIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH: $382,876 over 9y, 23% of budgetSEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION: $361,000 over 9y, 3.2% of budgetNEXT STEP DAY ROOM INC D/B/A NEXT STEP DAY ROOM: $347,916 over 6y, 11% of budgetTHE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY: $337,600 over 9y, 44% of budgetBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 16 WESTARK AREA COUNCIL: $303,000 over 9y, 4.3% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOGAN COUNTY: $302,600 over 9y, 19% of budgetBOYS SHELTER INC: $294,432 over 6y, 16% of budgetLITERACY COUNCIL OF WESTERN ARKANSAS INC: $270,000 over 9y, 41% of budgetABILITIES UNLIMITED INC: $234,000 over 9y, 2.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE COUNTY: $224,748 over 9y, 17% of budgetPROJECT COMPASSION INC: $221,000 over 9y, 26% of budgetSOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS: $212,540 over 9y, 16% 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.

    • 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 GIRLS' SHELTER OF FORT SMITH ↗
    • Who funds SEBASTIAN RETIRED CITIZENS ASSOCIATION ↗
    • Who funds NEXT STEP DAY ROOM INC D/B/A NEXT STEP DAY ROOM ↗
    • Who funds THE ARC FOR THE RIVER VALLEY ↗
    • Who funds BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 16 WESTARK AREA COUNCIL ↗
    • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SOUTH LOGAN COUNTY ↗
    • Who funds BOYS SHELTER INC ↗
    • Who funds LITERACY COUNCIL OF WESTERN ARKANSAS INC ↗
    • Who funds ABILITIES UNLIMITED INC ↗
    • Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LEFLORE COUNTY ↗
    • Who funds PROJECT COMPASSION INC ↗
    • Who funds SOUTH SEBASTIAN COUNTY BOYS & GIRLS ↗

    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.

    Alline B & Chloe C Da…Elizabeth H & Stanley…William Thomas & May …Walter O Caldwell Fou…Arvest FoundationAbb FoundationArkansas Community Fo…Rosalie Tilles Childr…The Degen FoundationCadence Bank Foundati…Boys & Girls Clubs of…Boys & Girls Clubs of…
    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

    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 United Way of Fort Smith Area Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Way of Fort Smith Area Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24’25
    no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's 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, 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 36 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 United Way of Fort Smith Area’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