· Public charity
Caring Communities Inc
Promote & support effective private/public partnerships; improve the health & well-being of missouri's children & families; caring communities; mo kids count; no kid hungry.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $25k
- $10k–50k3 grants · $64k
- $50k–250k6 grants · $374k
- $250k+4 grants · $2.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Good Dads | $1,394,722 |
| The Global Orphan Project | $460,750 |
| Chapin Hall Center for Children | $438,662 |
| Futures in Action Inc | $322,999 |
| Vision for Children at Risk | $72,662 |
| Rose of Sharon Ministries Inc | $70,050 |
| Advocating for Children in Crisis and Transition | $67,699 |
| The University of Missouri - Columbia | $59,605 |
| New Madrid County Human Resources Council CP | $53,750 |
| Area Resources for Community and Human Services | $50,000 |
| Potosi School District | $24,187 |
| Therapy Paws | $23,479 |
| Children and Family Futures Inc | $16,400 |
| Dallas County R-1 Buffalo High School | $9,769 |
| Laclede County C5 School District | $9,185 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY18–25, $2.6M) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +70% since the first grant, against +30% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $456k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- TGTHE GLOBAL ORPHAN PROJECT INC4× · 2022–2025 · $1.6M · revenue +73%
- GDGOOD DADS INC2× · 2024–2025 · $1.6M · revenue +92% · 72% of their budget
- CHCHAPIN HALL CENTER FOR CHILDREN2× · 2024–2025 · $643k · revenue +1%
Funded once
- TCThe Curators of the University of Missourione grant, 2023 · $78k
- KCKANSAS CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLSone grant, 2019 · $50k
- COCITY OF ST LOUISone grant, 2019 · $35k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
We build strong kids, strong families, and strong communities with a primary focus on youth activities and programs.
To enable all young people, especially those who need them most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
The mission of the boys & girls clubs of west central missouri is to inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as caring and productive citizens.
Promotion of child care excellence in missouri
Children's services fund ('csf') is an innovative way to support child well-being projects. while we are funded by a jackson county sales tax, we are a stand-alone organization led by an independent board. (continued on schedule o)we are…
Kids Win Missouri furthers child well-being by advancing the health, education, safety and development of Missouri children and their families, especially those who are at-risk because of poverty, abuse, neglect, racial inequities or other…
Children's advocates for change was organized to improve the lives of children in illinois by bringing about significant changes public policies and programs for children through research, policy analysis and advocacy, public education and…
Embracing the ferguson commission's mandate, forward through ferguson centers impacted communities and mobilizes accountable bodies to advance racially equitable systems and policies that ensure all people in the st. louis region can…
Enhance the opportunities and quality of life for children and youth with disabilities. the organization achieves this objective through parent training, emotional support, direct advocacy, community education, self-advocacy and navigation…
Community coordinated child care (4c's) believes in improving and maintaining the health and nutritional status of children in child care while promoting the development of good eating habits.
To promote the christian way of living among its members and constituents, to promote the physical, mental & spiritual welfare of persons and to emphasize reverence for god, responsibility for the common good, respect for personality and…
To reduce the traumatic long-term effects of child abuse on children, their families and communities through coordination, child focused services, education and advocacy
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Adair County Family Ymca Inc and the most unlike its peers is Therapy Paws. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 27 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 7% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 15% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
28 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 66 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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.
- Who funds THE GLOBAL ORPHAN PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds GOOD DADS INC ↗
- Who funds CHAPIN HALL CENTER FOR CHILDREN ↗
- Who funds FUTURE IN ACTION ↗
- Who funds AREA RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY & HUMAN SERVICES ↗
- Who funds VISION FOR CHILDREN AT RISK INC ↗
- Who funds Columbia Center for Urban Agriculture ↗
- Who funds NEW MADRID CO HUMAN RESOURCES COUNCIL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP ↗
- Who funds THERAPY PAWS ↗
- Who funds OPERATION FOOD SEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds ADVOCATING FOR CHILDREN IN CRISIS AND TRANSITIONS ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI ALLIANCE OF YMCAS ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF JOPLIN ↗
- Who funds THE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL & NORTHEAST MISSOURI ↗
- Who funds ADAIR COUNTY FAMILY YMCA INC ↗
- Who funds Children and Family Futures Inc ↗
- Who funds HARVESTERS - THE COMMUNITY FOOD NETWORK ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI COALITION FOR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE ↗
- Who funds GUADALUPE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Greater Kansas City Community Foundation · Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · St Louis Community Foundation Inc · Allen P and Josephine B Green · Youthbridge Community Foundation · National Council of YMCAs of the USA · Good360 · Edward Jones Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Caring Communities Inc 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.
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.