Skip to content
United Way of Southwest Virginia Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

United Way of Southwest Virginia Inc

United way of southwest virginia fights for the health, education, and financial stability of every person in southwest virginia because they are the building blocks for a good quality of life.

$4.9M
Granted FY2025still arriving
22
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.5M
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Public Safety & Disaster$4.3MCommunity Improvement$500kHuman Services$120kFood & Nutrition$35kHousing & Shelter$27kEducation$17kHealth$17kYouth Development$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 22 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 22 grants below total $4,536,375, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,895,705 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $359,330 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

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $300k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $882k
  • $250k+5 grants · $3.4M
$85,871
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNITED WAY OF EAST TENNESSEE HIGHLANDS$1,500,156
WASHINGTON COUNTY VIRGINIA$628,972
PULASKI COUNTY VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS$590,986
GILES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS$384,846
EO COMPANIES$250,000
Individual grant recipient$247,276
BIG PRATER CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INC$175,133
UNITED WAY OF GREENE COUNTY$128,214
Individual grant recipient$98,732
TAZEWELL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS$95,497
GRAYSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS$85,871
UNITED WAY OF SEVIER COUNTY$50,806
Individual grant recipient$48,106
Individual grant recipient$46,307
CITY OF GALAX VIRGINIA$42,261
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 (FY21–21, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%NEW RIVER FAMILY SHELTER: $6k → 21%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.

12%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$598k · 5 repeat orgs$4.5M to everyone else

5 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 21 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
17

Total granted

$598k
$165k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-4%
-3%

Still filing today

100%
47%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 6% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.3M went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’24’25
PhilanthropyHuman ServicesCrime & LegalFood & NutritionPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • EC
    EO COMPANIES
    2× · 2024–2025 · $500k · revenue -49%
  • WR
    WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER OF THE NEW RIVER VALLEY INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $51k · revenue -4%
  • NR
    NEW RIVER COMMUNITY ACTION INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $23k · revenue +12%

Funded once

  • M
    MCEAP
    one grant, 2022 · $22k
  • MC
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INC
    one grant, 2021 · $21k · revenue -6%
  • BI
    Blacksburg Interfaith Food Pantry
    one grant, 2022 · $18k
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
United Way of Henry County & Martinsville

The united way of henry county-martinsville unites and mobilizes the community in assessing and meeting the critical human service needs in henry county-martinsville, virginia.

—
2
United Way of the Greenbrier Valley Inc

Our mission: to improve lives by mobilizing the caring power of the communities in pocahontas, greenbrier, and monroe counties, west virginia. the mission includes providing a conduit for the public to support specific organizations and,…

Human Services
3
United Way of Wilson County & the Upper Cumberland

The United Way of Wilson County exists to enhance the quality of life through a combined effort of individuals and organizations pulling together to address health and human service needs in Wilson County and the Upper Cumberland.

Human Services
4
New Directions of Horry County Inc

To assist the needs of individuals, help them navigate past obstacles that prevent them from getting out of the cycle of homelessness and poverty, and assist them with achieving independent living.

Human Services
5
United Way of Transylvania County

To build a stronger transylvania county by mobilizing our community to empower people to improve their lives.

—
6
United Way of Rutherford County Inc

The organization promotes and supports the efficient, effective and economical provison of human services through its organizational members.

Philanthropy
7
Eastern West Virginia Community Action Agency Inc

Eastern West Virginia Community Action Agency serves the disadvantaged people by determining their needs; advocating for and providing programs that help remove them from the causes of poverty.

Housing & Shelter
8
United Way of Franklin County

Our mission is to focus on the power of giving by promoting volunteerism and mobilizing financial resources to eliminate the countys compelling human service needs

—
9
United Way of Virginia's Eastern Shore Inc

United way improves lives by mobilizing the caring power of communities around the world to advance common good. the united way of virginia's eastern shore is a local volunteer organization established in 1991 by business people and…

Philanthropy
10
River Valley United Way Inc

To disperse funds for charitable purposes.

Philanthropy
11
United Way of Northeast Kentucky

Solicit Funds for Charitable and Civic Work

Philanthropy
12
North Ridgeville Community Care Inc

The organization provides emergency services to low income and needy individuals in north ridgeville ohio

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New River Valley Child Advocacy Resources Education & Services; the most unlike its peers is Leisure Directions Inc. 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 43 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/19
Grantees still filing
7/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

WASHINGTON COUNTY VIRGINIA: $628,972 · OtherWASHINGTON COUNTY VIRGINIAPULASKI COUNTY VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: $590,986 · OtherPULASKI COUNTY VIRGINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORSGILES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: $384,846 · OtherGILES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORSIndividual grant recipient: $247,276 · OtherIndividual grant recipientBIG PRATER CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INC: $175,133 · OtherBIG PRATER CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION INCIndividual grant recipient: $98,732 · OtherTAZEWELL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: $95,497 · Other+24 more: $553,192 · Other+24 moreUNITED WAY OF EAST TENNESSEE HIGHLANDS INC: $1,500,156 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF EAST TENNESSEE HIGHLANDS INCEO COMPANIES: $500,000 · PhilanthropyEO COMPANIESGreene County United Way Inc: $128,214 · PhilanthropyGreene County United Way Inc+2 more: $50,437 · PhilanthropyWOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER OF THE NEW RIVER VALLEY INC: $51,413 · Human ServicesNew River Family Shelter Inc: $6,008 · Human ServicesBeans and Rice Inc: $5,923 · Human ServicesLeisure Directions Inc: $5,279 · Human ServicesBLACKSBURG VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD: $11,492 · Public Safety & DisasterNEW RIVER VALLEY CHILD ADVOCACY RESOURCES EDUCATION & SERVICES: $10,507 · Crime & LegalRADFORD FAIRLAWN DAILY BREAD: $5,616 · Food & Nutrition
Other$2,774,634Philanthropy$2,178,807Human Services$68,623Public Safety & Disaster$11,492Crime & Legal$10,507Food & Nutrition$5,616

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 EAST TENNESSEE HIGHLANDS INC: $1,500,156 over 1y, 37% of budgetEO COMPANIES: $500,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetGreene County United Way Inc: $128,214 over 1y, 19% of budgetWOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTER OF THE NEW RIVER VALLEY INC: $51,413 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF SEVIER COUNTY: $50,806 over 1y, 5.7% of budgetNEW RIVER COMMUNITY ACTION INC: $22,709 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetMONTGOMERY COUNTY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INC: $20,805 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetUNITED WAY OF HAMBLEN COUNTY INC: $19,317 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICABLUE RIDGE MOUNTAINS COUNCIL: $12,593 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetNEW RIVER VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES INC: $11,696 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetBLACKSBURG VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD: $11,492 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetNEW RIVER VALLEY CHILD ADVOCACY RESOURCES EDUCATION & SERVICES: $10,507 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetTRI-RIVER HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $9,853 over 1y, 11% of budgetLITERACY VOLUNTEERS OF THE NEW RIVER VALLEY: $9,083 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetNew River Family Shelter Inc: $6,008 over 1y, 3.9% of budgetBeans and Rice Inc: $5,923 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetRADFORD FAIRLAWN DAILY BREAD: $5,616 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetLeisure Directions Inc: $5,279 over 1y, 9.6% 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.

C E Richardson Benevo…The Community Foundat…Celanese FoundationThe Carter and Kay Cr…Lyerly FoundationCorning Incorporated …Grapevine giving foun…Mightycause Charitabl…The Blackbaud Giving …The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
C E Richardson Benevolent FoundationVA22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: C E Richardson Benevolent Foundation · The Community Foundation of the New River Valley Inc · Celanese Foundation · The Carter and Kay Craigie Family Foundation · Lyerly Foundation · Corning Incorporated Foundation · Grapevine giving foundation · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%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
    8report 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 43 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 Southwest Virginia’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