Skip to content
United Way of Mercer County at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

United Way of Mercer County

United Way of Mercer County champions the needs of children and families in our region.

$58k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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 2025.

Human Services$280kHealth$120kYouth Development$102kHousing & Shelter$98kPublic Safety & Disaster$42kEducation$41kRecreation & Sports$37kCivil Rights$35kOther$0
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $33,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $57,600 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $24,600 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 $10k3 grants · $23k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$8,800
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SALVATION ARMYSHENANGO VALLEY CORP$10,000
SHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE$8,800
PRINCE OF PEACE CENTER$8,600
THE GOOD SHEPHERD CENTER$5,600
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, $135k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%THE ARC OF MERCER COUNTY: $20k → 13%SHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $40k → 13%SHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $40k → 13%SHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $9k → 13%SHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $9k → 13%SHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $9k → 13%SHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $9k → 13%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$762k · 15 repeat orgs$42k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
3

Total granted

$762k
$42k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+2%
+33%

Still filing today

73%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

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

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

’17’18’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • PO
    PRINCE OF PEACE CENTER
    6× · 2017–2025 · $100k · revenue +2%
  • KB
    KEYSTONE BLIND ASSOCIATION
    2× · 2017–2018 · $62k · revenue +35%
  • BC
    BUHL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $37k · revenue +71%

Funded once

  • M
    MCARgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue +33%
  • CC
    Catholic Charities Counseling & Adoption Services of the Diocese of Erie Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $14k · revenue +133%
  • CL
    COMMUNITY LIBRARY OF THE SHENANGO VALLEY
    one grant, 2018 · $8k · revenue -1%
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
Center for Community Resources Inc

To coordinate services among private and government agencies for specialized populations to ensure service continuity, reduce duplication, and assist individuals and families in accessing appropriate mental health, intellectual…

Health
2
Bucksport Area Child Care Center

It is our mission to provide a child-centered environment, treating each child and family with respect.

Human Services
3
Schuylkill Community Action

Schuylkill community action is a private, nonprofit corporationincorporated under the laws of the commonwealth of pennsylvania. theprimary purpose of schuylkill community action is to coordinate andfocus all available resources upon the…

—
4
Penn Hills Library

A welcoming community center that provides information and equitable access to space, collections, materials, programs and services that enrich the quality of life and facilitate lifelong learning.

Education
5
Children's Center

Children's center serves children, youth and families through comprehensive mental health services.

—
6
Human Services Center

Human services center is a comprehensive community behavioral healthcare provider that provides mental health and development disability services to lawrence county residents.

Human Services
7
Schuyler County Child Care Coordinating Council Inc

To provide affordable, dependable, quality child care that meets the identified community needs for child care. enabling parents to be/remain employed furthering the goal of serl-sufficiency and job retention.

Human Services
8
Berks Community Health Center

Berks community health center provides exceptional family-centered primary and preventive healthcare for all residents of berks county, regardless of economic status.

Health
9
Center for Community Action

The center for community action is the designated lead poverty agency for blair, bedford, fulton, and huntingdon counties in central pennsylvania and exists to provide a broad spectrum of services to the low income residents of the…

Housing & Shelter
10
Webster City Day Care

Child day care center

—
11
The Sexual Assault Resource & Counseling Center of Lebanon & Schuylkill Cou

Sarccs mission is to prevent sexual violence and promote healing for those impacted.

—
12
Muskingum Valley Health Center

To provide affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Aid Society of Mercer County; the most unlike its peers is Shenango Valley Urban League. 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

15 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. 15 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
8/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE SALVATION ARMY: $167,769 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYPRINCE OF PEACE CENTER: $99,776 · OtherPRINCE OF PEACE CENTERKEYSTONE BLIND ASSOCIATION: $61,500 · OtherKEYSTONE BLIND ASSOCIATIONShenango Valley YMCA: $52,150 · OtherShenango Valley YMCAAMERICAN RED CROSS MERCER AND TRUMBULL COUNTIES: $41,500 · OtherAMERICAN RED CROSS MERCER AND TRUMBULL COUNTIESCHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF MERCER COUNTY: $40,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF MERCER COUNTYBUHL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER: $36,700 · OtherBUHL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTERTHE GOOD SHEPHERD CENTER INC: $30,200 · OtherMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF MERCER COUNTY: $28,000 · Other+3 more: $47,000 · Other+3 moreSHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $115,194 · Human ServicesSHENANGO VALLEY URB…MCAR: $20,000 · Human ServicesMCARCOMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER OF MERCER COUNTY: $30,000 · HealthCHILDREN'S CENTER OF MERCER COUNTY: $15,000 · HealthGIRL SCOUTS WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $11,000 · Youth DevelopmentCOMMUNITY LIBRARY OF THE SHENANGO VALLEY: $8,000 · Education
Other$604,595Human Services$135,194Health$45,000Youth Development$11,000Education$8,000

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 budgetSHENANGO VALLEY URBAN LEAGUE: $115,194 over 6y, 3.9% of budgetPRINCE OF PEACE CENTER: $99,776 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetShenango Valley YMCA: $52,150 over 2y, 8.9% of budgetCHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF MERCER COUNTY: $40,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetBUHL COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER: $36,700 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetTHE GOOD SHEPHERD CENTER INC: $30,200 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY COUNSELING CENTER OF MERCER COUNTY: $30,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetMERCER AREA LIBRARY INC: $15,000 over 2y, 6.4% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA: $11,000 over 2y, 0.1% 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.

Community Foundation …Buhl Regional Health …James Frances McCandl…Tj Kavanagh Foundatio…Edward J Kavanagh Fou…Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation of Western Pennsylvania and Eastern OhioPA30.1× affinity12 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio · Buhl Regional Health Foundation · James Frances McCandless Trust · Tj Kavanagh Foundation Inc · Edward J Kavanagh Foundation · 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 United Way of Mercer County funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Way of Mercer County. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 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 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 Mercer County’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