Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

United Way of the Capital Area

To improve lives and build strong communities by uniting individuals with the will, passion, expertise and resources needed to solve problems.

$183k
Granted FY2020
10
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$34k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172020.

Human Services$250kYouth Development$147kEducation$134kCommunity Improvement$72kHealth$67kHousing & Shelter$30kFood & Nutrition$24kEmployment$15k
02FY2020 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2020

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $175k
$16,750
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OPERATION SHOESTRING$33,500
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON$30,150
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI$26,800
CENTER FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION$20,100
MAGNOLIA SPEECH SCHOOL$16,750
MIDTOWN PARTNERS$16,750
GIRL SCOUTS MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI COUNCIL$11,390
CLINTON COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN CENTER$10,000
CHRISTIANS IN ACTION$10,000
MADISON COUNTIANS ALLIED AGAINST POVERTY$8,000
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 (FY17–20, $345k) land where the poverty rate runs at 23%, 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%OPERATION SHOESTRING: $50k → 23%OPERATION SHOESTRING: $50k → 23%OPERATION SHOESTRING: $34k → 23%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON: $45k → 23%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON: $45k → 23%CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF JACKSON: $30k → 23%MIDTOWN PARTNERS: $30k → 23%MIDTOWN PARTNERS: $25k → 23%YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (YMCA) - METRO: $20k → 23%MIDTOWN PARTNERS: $17k → 23%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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 5% of United Way of the Capital Area’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in MS; read by stated purpose it is 74% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

United Way of the Capital Arealessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 23% directed abroad (not shown)

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$703k · 10 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +13% since the first grant, against -13% for the ones you funded once.

10 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2020, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
2

Total granted

$703k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
-13%

Still filing today

100%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2020, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterHealthOther

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

  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI INC
    3× · 2017–2020 · $102k · revenue +3%
  • TC
    THE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION INC
    3× · 2017–2020 · $80k · revenue +141%
  • MP
    MIDTOWN PARTNERS INC
    3× · 2017–2020 · $72k · revenue +119%

Funded once

  • YM
    YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2017 · $20k · revenue -13%
  • JS
    JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2017 · $15k

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
Child Advocacy Center of Marshall County Alabama Inc

To provide comprehensive services to victims of child abuse.

Crime & Legal
2
Christian Services for Children in Alabama

The mission of christian services for children in alabama is to show the love of christ by providing counseling and other related services to children and their families.

3
Shelby County Children's Advocacy Center

Shelby County Children's Advocacy Center, Inc. is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to ending child abuse through education, advocacy, counseling, family support, and the pursuit of justice.

Crime & Legal
4
The Children's Advocacy Center of Hamilton County Inc

The cac provides intervention services for children who are victims of severe abuse and advocacy services to their non offending caregivers. this includes forensic interviews, medical exams, therapy, and prevention education. the cac also…

Human Services
5
Methodist Children's Home

Methodist children's home equips children, youth, and families to flourish by offering hope through christian-centered relationships, services, and support.

Human Services
6
The Child Advocacy Center of Anderson Co Tn

To combat severe physical and sexual abuse and resulting trauma by coordinating and providing services in a child friendly, safe and nurturing environment.

Human Services
7
Ms Childrens Advocacy Center Inc

Prevention of child abuse

Civil Rights
8
Child Advocacy Center of Cullman Inc

Nurturing hope, encouraging health, and promoting healing in troubled families through community collaboration, communication and cooperation

Human Services
9
Child Advocacy Services Inc

Child advocacy services gives voice, healing, and security to children in ten parishes in southeast louisiana through its casa program, children's advocacy program, and prevention education.

Civil Rights
10
Southeast Alabama Child Advocacy Center

Established to serve as an advocate of children & to reduce the trauma & anxiety of victims of child abuse by providing coordinated multi- disciplinary & human approach to the investigation & interviewing process.

Human Services
11
Child Safe of Central Missouri Inc

Child safe of central missouri's mission is to respond to and prevent child abuse by providing advocacy, support, and resources to children who are alleged victims of abuse and other traumatic crimes, and to their non-offending family…

Crime & Legal
12
Morgan County Child Advocacy Center

To provide a safe caring place to evaluate any child who may have been abused

Crime & Legal

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Catholic Charities Inc and the most unlike its peers is Clinton Community Christian Corp. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

05the grantee network

11 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. 11 of the 12 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

OPERATION SHOESTRING INC — $133,500 · Human ServicesOPERATION SHOESTRING INCCATHOLIC CHARITIES INC — $120,150 · Human ServicesCATHOLIC CHARITIES INCTHE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION INC — $80,100 · Human ServicesTHE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION INCMIDTOWN PARTNERS INC — $71,750 · Human ServicesMIDTOWN PARTNERS INCCLINTON COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN CORP — $30,000 · Human ServicesCLINTON COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN CORPYOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION — $20,000 · Human ServicesBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI INC — $101,800 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CE…GIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER MISSISSIPPI — $45,050 · OtherGIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER M…JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY — $15,000 · OtherJACKSON STATE UNIVERSITYMAGNOLIA SPEECH SCHOOL — $66,750 · HealthMAGNOLIA S…CHRISTIANS IN ACTION INC — $30,000 · Housing & ShelterMADISON COUNTIANS ALLIED AGAINST POVERTY — $23,500 · Housing & Shelter
Human Services$455,500Other$161,850Health$66,750Housing & Shelter$53,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetOPERATION SHOESTRING INC — $133,500 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetCATHOLIC CHARITIES INC — $120,150 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI INC — $101,800 over 3y, 1.8% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION INC — $80,100 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetMIDTOWN PARTNERS INC — $71,750 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetMAGNOLIA SPEECH SCHOOL — $66,750 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF GREATER MISSISSIPPI — $45,050 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCLINTON COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN CORP — $30,000 over 3y, 2.0% of budgetCHRISTIANS IN ACTION INC — $30,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetMADISON COUNTIANS ALLIED AGAINST POVERTY — $23,500 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetYOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION — $20,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

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.

Community Foundation for MississippiMS22× affinity8 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Mississippi · Selby and Richard McRae Foundation · Van Devender Family Foundation William Van Devender Trustee · Ergon Foundation Inc · Regions Foundation · His Way Inc · Mississippi Food Network Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 the Capital Area 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%0%1%3%5%your share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%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 · 0–25%
    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 12 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2020, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph