Skip to content
Buckner Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Private foundation

Buckner Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$360k
Granted FY2025still arriving
18
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0199% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Health$432kFood & Nutrition$411kArts & Culture$315kEmployment$131kEducation$116kEnvironment$107kHuman Services$76kRecreation & Sports$75kOther$0
02FY2025 · 18 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k13 grants · $298k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SALINE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY$50,000
FITZGIBBON HOSPITAL$44,094
SWEET SPRINGS COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY$40,000
MISSOURI VALLEY COLLEGE$36,200
DISTRICT III AREA AGENCY ON AGING$27,338
FOOD BANK OF CENTRAL AND NE MISSOURI$25,000
MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY STEAM ENGINE ASSOCIATION$25,000
MARSHALL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA$21,981
MARSHALL COMMUNITY CHORUS$20,000
FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH - ESL$13,200
SLATER HEALTHCARE FACILITIES CORP$12,000
TRI-COUNTY OUTREACH$12,000
GROW PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES$11,000
FRIENDS OF ARROW ROCK$10,000
COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY$5,000
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 (FY20–25, $54k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, 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%15th Judicial Circuit CASA: $26k → 11%DISTRICT III AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $27k → 15%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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.5M · 28 repeat orgs$459k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +14% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

28 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 15 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

28
25

Total granted

$1.5M
$370k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+14%
0%

Still filing today

57%
44%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $89k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • HN
    HCC Network
    3× · 2020–2023 · $115k · revenue +47%
  • MV
    MISSOURI VALLEY COLLEGE
    3× · 2020–2025 · $107k · revenue +29%
  • SS
    SWEET SPRINGS RESTORATION FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2024 · $95k · revenue +14% · 29% of their budget

Funded once

  • SC
    SALINE COUNTY CAREER CENTER
    one grant, 2022 · $50k
  • SC
    SALINE COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +11%
  • MC
    MARSHALL CULTURAL CENTER
    one grant, 2023 · $40k
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
Mid Missouri Malamute Rescue
Animals
2
Saline County Farm Bureau

Improve the economic well-being of agriculture and enrich the quality of farm life.

—
3
Missouri Centers for Independent Living
—
4
Jefferson County Farm Bureau

To improve the economic well being of agriculture in our communities

—
5
Perry County Services Inc

Provide support services to developmentally disabled individuals of perry county,missouri through areas of community employment, job preparation, day programs, transportation and personal assistance.

Human Services
6
Bates County Fair

The bates county fair was formed by members of bates county, missouri in 1972 with the tax exempt purpose of promoting and educating the members of the bates county community.

Recreation & Sports
7
Nodaway County Senior Citizens Senate Inc

Operate the Nodaway County Senior Center The Nodaway County Senior Citizens Senate, Inc operates the Nodaway County Senior Citizens center located in Maryville, Mo. The Center serves as

Human Services
8
Morgan County Agricultural Fair Association

The operation of the annual Morgan County Illinois Fair

—
9
Southeast Missouri District Fair Foundation

To educate the public about agriculture

Recreation & Sports
10
Blake Wagner Foundation
Human Services
11
Mexico Recreation Corporation

To support recreational facilities for audrain county, mo.

Recreation & Sports
12
Rolla Regional Economic Commission

To facilitate development of long-term diversified business and employment opportunities in Rolla, MO, Phelps County and the surrounding areas.

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Marshall Area United Way Inc; the most unlike its peers is Friends of Blackwater. 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

31 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. 31 of the 58 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.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
31/31
Grantees still filing
13/31
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FITZGIBBON HOSPITAL: $249,094 · OtherFITZGIBBON HOSPITALLAFAYETTE COUNTY ENTERPRISES INC: $80,700 · OtherLAFAYETTE COUNTY ENTERPRISES INCSWEET SPRINGS COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRY: $68,000 · OtherSWEET SPRINGS COMMUNITY FOOD PANTRYSALINE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $60,000 · OtherHEART OF AMERICA REDISTRIBUTION: $60,000 · OtherNELSON BAPTIST CHURCH: $50,000 · OtherSALINE COUNTY CAREER CENTER: $50,000 · OtherMARSHALL CULTURAL CENTER: $40,000 · OtherSALINE COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION: $50,000 · OtherMISSOURI RIVER BIRD OBSERVATORY: $40,000 · Other+31 more: $423,353 · Other+31 moreHCC Network: $115,000 · Community ImprovementHCC NetworkSWEET SPRINGS RESTORATION FOUNDATION: $95,000 · Community ImprovementSWEET SPRING…+1 more: $1,950 · Community ImprovementTri-County Outreach: $187,000 · ReligionTri-County…MISSOURI VALLEY COLLEGE: $107,455 · EducationMARSHALL PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATIO: $5,000 · EducationFRIENDS OF ARROW ROCK: $35,000 · Arts & CultureTHE MARSHALL NICHOLAS BEAZLEY AVIATION MUSEUM INC: $32,800 · Arts & CultureMissouri River Valley Steam Engine Association: $25,000 · Arts & CultureTAKING SHAPE INC: $19,000 · Arts & CultureCommunity Food Pantry: $66,000 · Food & NutritionCOOPER COUNTY AGRICULTURE AND MECHANICAL SOCIETY: $25,000 · Food & NutritionTHE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL & NORTHEAST MISSOURI: $20,000 · Food & NutritionSLATER HEALTH CARE FACILITIES: $21,000 · HealthGrow Pediatric Therapy Services: $17,500 · HealthRILEY EQUINE CENTER INC: $9,300 · HealthSAVING KIDSIGHT: $8,000 · Health
Other$1,171,147Community Improvement$211,950Religion$187,000Education$112,455Arts & Culture$111,800Food & Nutrition$111,000Health$55,800

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 budgetTri-County Outreach: $187,000 over 5y, 60% of budgetHCC Network: $115,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetMISSOURI VALLEY COLLEGE: $107,455 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetSWEET SPRINGS RESTORATION FOUNDATION: $95,000 over 3y, 29% of budgetLAFAYETTE COUNTY ENTERPRISES INC: $80,700 over 3y, 4.1% of budgetCommunity Food Pantry: $66,000 over 5y, 20% of budgetSALINE COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION: $50,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetMISSOURI RIVER BIRD OBSERVATORY: $40,000 over 2y, 7.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF ARROW ROCK: $35,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetTHE MARSHALL NICHOLAS BEAZLEY AVIATION MUSEUM INC: $32,800 over 2y, 27% of budgetDISTRICT III AREA AGENCY ON AGING: $27,338 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMissouri River Valley Steam Engine Association: $25,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetMarshall Philharmonic Orchestra Inc: $21,981 over 1y, 24% of budgetSLATER HEALTH CARE FACILITIES: $21,000 over 2y, 35% of budgetSALT FORK YMCA: $20,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetTHE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL & NORTHEAST MISSOURI: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTAKING SHAPE INC: $19,000 over 3y, 14% of budgetGrow Pediatric Therapy Services: $17,500 over 2y, 2.2% of budgetRIVER RELIEF INC D/B/A MISSOURI RIVER RELIEF: $12,265 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetMARSHALL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $12,200 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetBI-COUNTY SERVICE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetBI-COUNTY SERVICES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRILEY EQUINE CENTER INC: $9,300 over 2y, 6.1% of budgetSAVING KIDSIGHT: $8,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetA CHANCE TO GROW: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMARSHALL PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATIO: $5,000 over 1y, 9.4% of budgetMARSHALL AREA UNITED WAY INC: $2,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budgetFRIENDS OF BLACKWATER: $1,950 over 1y, 34% 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.

Mfa Oil FoundationFoltz Martin Foundati…Greater Kansas City C…Charities Aid Foundat…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Amazonsmile FoundationFidelity Investments …
Mfa Oil FoundationMO15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Mfa Oil Foundation · Foltz Martin Foundation Trust · Greater Kansas City Community Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation · 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 Buckner Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Buckner Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 Buckner Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Buckner Foundation 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 58 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-PF 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 Buckner’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