Skip to content
United Way of NE SD Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

United Way of NE SD Foundation

None

$59k
Granted FY2025still arriving
1
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$52k
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.

Philanthropy$157kHuman Services$44kYouth Development$39kFood & Nutrition$31kEmployment$20kHealth$18kRecreation & Sports$12kCommunity Improvement$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $52,491, the rows itemized in this filing. The $58,851 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $6,360 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.
$52,491
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
United Way of Northeastern SD Inc$52,491
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 (FY17–17, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%Ipswich Tiger Post: $3k → 10%Aberdeen Senior Center: $1k → 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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$341k · 9 repeat orgs$18k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +22% since the first grant, against +10% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
7

Total granted

$341k
$18k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+22%
+10%

Still filing today

67%
86%

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
HealthHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • UW
    United Way of Northeastern South Dakota Inc
    7× · 2017–2025 · $191k · revenue +22%
  • LS
    LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA
    3× · 2017–2022 · $20k · revenue +19%
  • AF
    Aberdeen Family YMCA
    3× · 2017–2021 · $19k · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • ST
    SPURS Therapeutic Riding Center Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue +102%
  • SH
    Safe Harbor
    one grant, 2021 · $5k · revenue +11%
  • IT
    Ipswich Tiger Post Community Center
    one grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue -5%
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
South Peninsula Behavioral Health Services Inc

The organization operates primarily on the Southern Kenai Peninsula and its operations include the following:Community Mental Health - Counseling, evaluation, consultation and crisis mental health services for Adults and…

Health
2
Ymca of the Northern Sky

We are dedicated to enhancing the spirit, mind, and body of all persons through youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility.

Human Services
3
Aberdeen Development Corporation

Recruit, retain, expand, and provide entrepreneurial support to enhance economic opportunity in Aberdeen and our surrounding region.

—
4
Boys & Girls Club of the Northern Plains 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.

Youth Development
5
Odd Fellows and Rebekah Home of North Dakota Inc

It is the mission of the Odd Fellows Home to be a "Place Where Somebody Cares." This has been the motto off Odd Fellows Home since the 1925 dedication. The Odd Fellows Home's mission is to provide a comfortable and pleasant atmosphere as…

Housing & Shelter
6
Northwood Deaconess Health Center

Serve as a local access to a full range of health care services. continue as a leader in primary care for the whole family, in care of the elderly, and in emergency services. Function as a focal point for health education and wellness.

Health
7
Boys & Girls Clubs of the Sioux Empire

To nurture, educate and enrich children and youth for life-long success.

Human Services
8
Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital

Girl scouting builds girls of courage, confidence and character who make the world a better place.

Youth Development
9
Faulkton Area Out of School Program

Enriching the mental emotional and physical development of children.

Human Services
10
Boys & Girls Club of Spokane County

To empower all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential through opportunities to realize academic success, good character and citizenship, and healthy lifestyles.

Youth Development
11
Aberdeen Area Chamber of Commerce

To champion the economic health and vitality of our community and the greater Aberdeen area while serving as the premier advocate for our members.

—
12
Missouri Valley Family Ymca

To put Christian principles into practices through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota; the most unlike its peers is Ipswich Tiger Post Community Center. 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

13 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. 13 of the 16 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

United Way of Northeastern South Dakota Inc: $190,991 · OtherUnited Way of Northeastern South Dakota IncBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ABERDEEN AREA INC: $35,500 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ABERDEEN AREA INCCity of Aberdeen Parks and Recreation Department: $22,314 · OtherCity of Aberdeen Parks and Recreation DepartmentLUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $19,525 · OtherLUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTAAberdeen Family YMCA: $18,800 · OtherAberdeen Family YMCASALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORP: $18,500 · OtherSALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORPTHE SALVATION ARMY: $15,000 · Other+4 more: $16,452 · OtherNortheastern Mental Health Center: $12,500 · HealthSPURS Therapeutic Riding Center Inc: $5,090 · HealthIpswich Tiger Post Community Center: $2,500 · Human ServicesAberdeen Senior Center Inc: $1,099 · Human ServicesGIRL SCOUTS - DAKOTA HORIZONS: $1,250 · Youth Development
Other$337,082Health$17,590Human Services$3,599Youth Development$1,250

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 budgetUnited Way of Northeastern South Dakota Inc: $190,991 over 7y, 5.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF ABERDEEN AREA INC: $35,500 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetLUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA: $19,525 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAberdeen Family YMCA: $18,800 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNortheastern Mental Health Center: $12,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetHabitat for Humanity International Inc DBA Hub Area Habitat for Humanity: $7,952 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetSPURS Therapeutic Riding Center Inc: $5,090 over 1y, 2.7% of budgetSafe Harbor: $4,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetBethesda Home of Aberdeen Inc: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSIOUX COUNCIL BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS - DAKOTA HORIZONS: $1,250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAberdeen Senior Center Inc: $1,099 over 1y, 12% 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.

United Way of Northea…Midcontinent Foundati…South Dakota Communit…First Interstate Banc…Avera HealthAmazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Northeastern South Dakota IncSD26.4× affinity10 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Northeastern South Dakota Inc · Midcontinent Foundation · South Dakota Community Foundation · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Avera Health · 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 NE SD Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Way of NE SD Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 16 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 NE SD’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