· Charitable trust
Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family Trust
The charitable trust provides charitable grants to indigent missouri residents with disabilities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2020–2021.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 6 grants below total $120,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $328,458 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $208,458 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2021
- Under $10k2 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k4 grants · $107k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| TREE HOUSE OF GREATER ST LOUIS | $41,800 |
| CEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENT | $24,000 |
| EQUINE-ASSISTED THERAPY INC | $24,000 |
| WONDERLAND CAMP | $17,000 |
| SHOWME AQUATICS AND FITNESS | $7,200 |
| EXCEPTIONAL EQUESTRIANS | $6,000 |
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 (FY21–21, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% 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.
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.
To provide therapeautic benefits to handicapped citizens through a horseback riding program.
Special Equestrians provides therapeutic riding programs to individuals with physical, mental, and emotional disabilities.
We improve quality of life through equine-based therapy to physically, mentally and socially/emotionally challenged individuals. Our unique program integrates academic, social and physical skills using the horse as a catalyst.
Empowering individuals with diverse abilities to reach their full potential through equine-assisted services since 1974.
National center for equine facilitated training is dedicated to helping people with special needs reach beyond their boundaries through equine-assisted therapies, education, and research.
To provide theraputic and recreational horseback riding for emotionally, physically and mentally challenged individuals.
Dedicated to improving the quality of life for anyone with a physical, mental, or emotional disability through therapeutic riding and hippotherapy.
To provide professional therapeutic horseback riding activities for individuals who are mentally or physically challenged.
To improve the minds, bodies and spirits of children and adults with special needs through the benefits of therapeutic riding and equine assisted activities.
Provide therapeutic horsemanship to disabled individuals.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Exceptional Equestrians of the Missouri Valley Inc and the most unlike its peers is Nami of Missouri. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
8 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.
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 TREE HOUSE OF GREATER ST LOUIS ↗
- Who funds EQUINE-ASSISTED THERAPY INC ↗
- Who funds CEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER ↗
- Who funds WONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS MISSOURI INC ↗
- Who funds NAMI OF MISSOURI ↗
- Who funds SHOWME AQUATICS AND FITNESS ↗
- Who funds EXCEPTIONAL EQUESTRIANS OF THE MISSOURI VALLEY 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.
Open a dossier: Amazonsmile Foundation
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 Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family Trust 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family Trust?
Find your warmest path to Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family Trust 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.