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

· Public charity

United Way of Whitman County

UNITED WAY OF WHITMAN COUNTY is a voluntary nonprofit organization supporting a local network of social service, youth, and health agencies for people who live and work in pullman and whitman county.

$74k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$9k
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 2024.

Human Services$345kHealth$178kPhilanthropy$128kEmployment$60kFood & Nutrition$32kHousing & Shelter$23kYouth Development$9kCrime & Legal$8kOther$0
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $39,275, the rows itemized in this filing. The $74,426 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $35,151 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.
$8,650
Median grant
2
States reached
$117k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Family Promise of the Palouse$8,750
Palouse River Counseling$8,700
Pullman Community Council on Aging$8,650
Circles of Caring$7,175
Community Childcare Center$6,000
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 (FY17–24, $191k) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%COUNCIL ON AGING: $32k → 20%Family Promise of the Palouse: $9k → 16%Family Promise of the Palouse: $8k → 16%ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE: $17k → 20%ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE: $15k → 20%CIRCLES OF CARING: $14k → 20%ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE: $14k → 20%ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE: $14k → 20%Circles of Caring: $12k → 20%CIRCLES OF CARING: $12k → 20%CIRCLES OF CARING: $11k → 20%CIRCLES OF CARING: $10k → 20%COMMUNITY ACTION CENTER: $9k → 20%Alternatives to Violance: $8k → 20%Circles of Caring: $7k → 20%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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$638k · 10 repeat orgs$146k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
14

Total granted

$638k
$146k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+28%
+52%

Still filing today

80%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24
Human ServicesHealthEmploymentPhilanthropyOther
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

  • PR
    PALOUSE RIVER COUNSELING CENTER INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $98k · revenue +69%
  • CC
    COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTER
    7× · 2017–2024 · $81k · revenue +68%
  • AT
    ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE OF THE PALOUSE INC
    5× · 2018–2023 · $68k · revenue +20%

Funded once

  • CO
    COUNCIL ON AGING & HUMAN SERVICESgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $32k · revenue +83%
  • AT
    ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE
    one grant, 2017 · $27k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $21k
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
Family Promise of Cowlitz County

To help families with children in our community who are situationally homeless achieve sustainable independence through a community based response by providing temporary housing, usually 60-90 days, along with case management.

Human Services
2
Manzanita House

To embrace, equip, and empower immigrants through access to culturally informed essential services, and facilitate covnnections to grow deeper roots and thrive in Spokane.

Arts & Culture
3
Larche Noah Sealth of Seattle

To make known the gifts of people with developmental disabilities revealed through mutually transforming relationships. To engage in our diverse cultures, working together toward a more humane society. To foster community that is inspired…

Human Services
4
Latah Recovery Community Center Inc

The latah recovery community center inc. is a private, nonprofit organization serving people who are in recovery from alcohol and other drug use or mental health disorders. it is a partnership between people in recovery, family members,…

Health
5
Pierce County Project Access

To improve the health of individuals, families and communities by ensuring pathways to health services for Pierce County residents in need.

Health
6
Arc of Snohomish County

To serve individuals with developmental disabilities and their families

—
7
Allegiant Human Services

Provide up to 24 hours a day care for disabled individuals including job training, coaching, group companion and community care for health and safety. Also provide residential services to those with disabilities requiring assisted living.

Health
8
People Empowered and Communities Enhanc

Peace nw believes that healthy interdependence on one another is required for individuals and hence, the community to be healthy and whole. peace sees this occurring through accompaniment with one another on our individual journeys. while…

Human Services
9
The Friendship Circle of Washington

The Friendship Circle extends respite, inclusion,support and friendship to families, children and teens with special needs and involves them in a full range of social, educational & life skills experiences. this unique formula introduces…

Education
10
Columbia Community Care

The mission of Columbia Community Care is to create authentic connections and community partnerships. We listen, and respond by providing resources and programs, while respecting the inherent dignity of every person.

Human Services
11
Humane Society of the Palouse

The mission of the hsop is to ensure the humane treatment, welfare, and safety of companion animals in moscow and latah county. we strive to prevent cruelty to animals, to ensure that companion animals are adopted by responsible and caring…

Animals
12
Disability Action Center Nw Inc

Independent Living for the Disabled

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Action Center; the most unlike its peers is Circles of Caring Adult Day Health Foundation 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

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 24 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
8/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Young Men's Christian Association of The Palouse: $122,618 · OtherYoung Men's Christian Association of The PalousePULLMAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL ON AGING: $90,706 · OtherPULLMAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL ON AGINGCOMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTER: $80,818 · OtherCOMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTERALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE: $26,800 · OtherALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCEFAMILIES TOGETHER OF THE PALOUSE: $24,493 · OtherFAMILIES TOGETHER OF THE PALOUSEIndividual grant recipient: $20,550 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $16,600 · OtherBOOST COLLABORATIVE (PALOUSE INDUSTRIES): $15,500 · Other+7 more: $19,243 · OtherALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE OF THE PALOUSE INC: $67,552 · Human ServicesALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE OF …CIRCLES OF CARING ADULT DAY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $65,943 · Human ServicesCIRCLES OF CARING ADULT DAY…COUNCIL ON AGING & HUMAN SERVICES: $32,000 · Human ServicesCOUNCIL ON AGING & HUMAN SE…FAMILY PROMISE OF THE PALOUSE INC: $16,750 · Human ServicesFAMILY PROMISE OF THE PALOU…Community Action Center: $8,956 · Human ServicesPALOUSE RIVER COUNSELING CENTER INC: $98,183 · HealthPALOUSE RIVER C…LILAC SERVICES FOR THE BLIND: $10,943 · HealthLILAC SERVICES …BOOST COLLABORATIVE: $60,243 · EmploymentGATES PHILANTHROPY PARTNERS: $6,000 · Philanthropy
Other$417,328Human Services$191,201Health$109,126Employment$60,243Philanthropy$6,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYoung Men's Christian Association of The Palouse: $122,618 over 6y, 10% of budgetPALOUSE RIVER COUNSELING CENTER INC: $98,183 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetCOMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTER: $80,818 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE OF THE PALOUSE INC: $67,552 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetCIRCLES OF CARING ADULT DAY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $65,943 over 6y, 2.9% of budgetBOOST COLLABORATIVE: $60,243 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetCOUNCIL ON AGING & HUMAN SERVICES: $32,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetFAMILIES TOGETHER OF THE PALOUSE: $24,493 over 3y, 18% of budgetFAMILY PROMISE OF THE PALOUSE INC: $16,750 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetCommunity Action Center: $8,956 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPALOUSE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $6,375 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetGATES PHILANTHROPY PARTNERS: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds Young Men's Christian Association of The Palouse ↗
  • Who funds PALOUSE RIVER COUNSELING CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY CHILD CARE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLENCE OF THE PALOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds CIRCLES OF CARING ADULT DAY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds BOOST COLLABORATIVE ↗
  • Who funds COUNCIL ON AGING & HUMAN SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds FAMILIES TOGETHER OF THE PALOUSE ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY PROMISE OF THE PALOUSE INC ↗
  • Who funds LILAC SERVICES FOR THE BLIND ↗
  • Who funds Community Action Center ↗
  • Who funds PALOUSE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ↗
  • Who funds GATES PHILANTHROPY PARTNERS ↗

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.

Innovia FoundationThe Avista FoundationThe Chicago Community…Lewis-Clark Valley He…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Innovia FoundationWA20.7× affinity8 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Innovia Foundation · The Avista Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Lewis-Clark Valley Healthcare Foundation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Whitman County funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from United Way of Whitman County. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%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 · 0–40%
    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 24 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 2024, released 2024. 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 $44k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on United Way of Whitman 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