Skip to content
United Way of the Capital Area at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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 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 2020.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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

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 (FY17–20, $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 its 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
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.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 5% of United Way of the Capital Area’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in MS; by stated purpose, 74%.

United Way of the Capital Arealessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 23% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
$703k · 10 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +12% since the first grant, against -13% for those 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

+12%
-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
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

  • 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
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
Delta Childrens Advocacy Center

Delta Childrens Advocacy Centers mission is to respond to child abuse in the Mississippi Delta by serving and nurturing children and non-offending caregivers through a trauma-informed multidisciplinary approach.

Crime & Legal
2
Memphis Child Advocacy Center

The mission is to serve children who are victims of sexual and severe physical abuse through prevention, education, and intervention.

Crime & Legal
3
Ms Childrens Advocacy Center Inc

Prevention of child abuse

Civil Rights
4
Child Advocacy Center of Marshall County Alabama Inc

To provide comprehensive services to victims of child abuse.

Crime & Legal
5
Mississippi Children's Home Society

To improve the lives of children and families by providing a continuum of compassionate, measureable, and effective behavioral health and social services for children and families.

—
6
Midland County Child Protection Council

To prevent child abuse and neglect and improve the quality of life for children and families.

—
7
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
8
Mississippi Children's Home Services Inc

To improve the lives of children and families by providing a continuum of compassionate, measurable, and effective behavioral health and social services by providing management services to mississippi children's home society and cares…

Human Services
9
Morgan County Child Advocacy Center

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

Crime & Legal
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
Jackson County Children's Advocacy Center

Child abuse response and prevention through service, education, and leadership

Crime & Legal
12
Agape Community Development Center

See schedule othe mission of the agape community development center is to provide safe, affordable, high quality child care for the madison county, ms community. in doing so, we support families in their efforts to reach their goals. the…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Catholic Charities Inc; 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 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. 11 of the 12 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)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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
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 …Selby and Richard McR…Van Devender Family F…Ergon Foundation IncRegions FoundationHis Way IncMississippi Food Netw…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
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

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 the Capital Area funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Way of the Capital Area. 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%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, 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 12 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 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

    Play a game based on United Way of the Capital 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