Skip to content
White River Valley Electric Trust INC at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

White River Valley Electric Trust INC

To provide financial assistance to the needy.

$206k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Education$230kCommunity Improvement$104kFood & Nutrition$96kRecreation & Sports$18kYouth Development$15kHealth$13kArts & Culture$10kPublic Safety & Disaster$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $65,622, the rows itemized in this filing. The $205,750 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $140,128 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.
$6,970
Median grant
1
States reached
$408k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Gainesville Schools$9,501
Chadwick R-1 School District$9,315
American Legion$9,236
CAM-Branson & Forsyth$7,132
Hope Counseling Center$6,970
Spokane Schools$6,665
Lutie Schools$6,006
Chadwick Schools$5,705
CAM-Stone$5,092
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 (FY21–23, $21k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Least of These: $7k → 8%LEAST OF THESE: $7k → 8%LEAST OF THESE: $7k → 8%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.

49%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$251k · 8 repeat orgs$263k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +178% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
29

Total granted

$251k
$237k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+178%
0%

Still filing today

25%
24%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 61% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementHealthYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesFood & NutritionOther
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

  • CA
    Christian Action Ministries
    5× · 2021–2025 · $53k · revenue +18%
  • GS
    GAINESVILLE SCHOOLS
    5× · 2021–2025 · $44k
  • LS
    LUTIE SCHOOLS
    5× · 2021–2025 · $36k

Funded once

  • SA
    SPARTA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2021 · $15k
  • BA
    BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE OZARKS
    one grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue 0%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $13k
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
Pratt County Foodbank Inc

County food bank to assist with food needs of limited income families

Food & Nutrition
2
Ozarks Center of Hope

Benevolence Help with payment of bills to prevent homelessness

Human Services
3
Ozark Mountain Country Cares

Help support other local charities

—
4
Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks
—
5
Ozora Community Fire Protection Association

Fire protection

—
6
Oregon Area Chamber of Commerce

Promote business in oregon il

—
7
Hickory County Cares

Food distribution to the needy

Human Services
8
Hob Community Development Corporation

Food distribution

Religion
9
Senior Foundation of the Ozarks

Promote and increase senior services

—
10
Christian Outreach Program Emergency of Massac Co

Provide food for the needy

Food & Nutrition
11
Fayette Ministerial Alliance Inc

Christian Witness by meeting physical ne

Human Services
12
Churches of Osage County United Inc

Proivde food, sanitary items, and household necessities to families at or below 150% poverty level to meet basic needs.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Club of the Ozarks; the most unlike its peers is Ava Rural Fire Department 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

11 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 40 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)
10/11
Grantees still filing
3/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Christian Action Ministries: $53,319 · OtherChristian Action MinistriesGAINESVILLE SCHOOLS: $44,377 · OtherGAINESVILLE SCHOOLSLUTIE SCHOOLS: $35,530 · OtherLUTIE SCHOOLSSpokane Schools: $33,740 · OtherSpokane SchoolsBRADLEYVILLE SCHOOLS: $33,442 · OtherBRADLEYVILLE SCHOOLSCHADWICK SCHOOLS: $17,595 · Other+26 more: $215,922 · Other+26 moreLEAST OF THESE INC: $21,463 · Human ServicesSPARTA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $15,000 · Community ImprovementHistoric River District Inc: $5,000 · Community ImprovementBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE OZARKS: $15,000 · Youth DevelopmentYIPOA CENTER INC: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentFaith Community Health DBA Hope Counseling Center: $6,970 · HealthOZARKS SERENITY CLUB INC: $6,000 · HealthHEART OF THE HILLS FOOD HARVEST INC: $6,100 · Food & Nutrition
Other$433,925Human Services$21,463Community Improvement$20,000Youth Development$20,000Health$12,970Food & Nutrition$6,100

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetChristian Action Ministries: $53,319 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetLEAST OF THESE INC: $21,463 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE OZARKS: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetOZARK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $10,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetAVA RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT INC: $10,000 over 1y, 7.3% of budgetHEART OF THE HILLS FOOD HARVEST INC: $6,100 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetYIPOA CENTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetHistoric River District Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 5.4% 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.

  • Who funds Christian Action Ministries ↗
  • Who funds LEAST OF THESE INC ↗
  • Who funds SPARTA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF THE OZARKS ↗
  • Who funds OZARK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
  • Who funds AVA RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds Faith Community Health DBA Hope Counseling Center ↗
  • Who funds HEART OF THE HILLS FOOD HARVEST INC ↗
  • Who funds OZARKS SERENITY CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds YIPOA CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Historic River District Inc ↗

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 …Ozarks Food Harvest I…Stanley & Elaine Ball…Arvest FoundationFidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation of the Ozarks IncMO17× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc · Ozarks Food Harvest Inc · Stanley & Elaine Ball Charitable Tr · Arvest Foundation · 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 White River Valley Electric Trust INC funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from White River Valley Electric Trust INC. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to White River Valley Electric Trust INC?

    Find your warmest path to White River Valley Electric Trust INC through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 40 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 White River Valley Electric’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