Skip to content

· Charitable trust

Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family Trust

The charitable trust provides charitable grants to indigent missouri residents with disabilities.

$328k
Granted FY2021
6
Grants FY2021
1
States reached
$42k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2021.

Health$97kPublic Safety & Disaster$24kRecreation & Sports$17kHuman Services$6k
02FY2021 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $120,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $328,458 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $208,458 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.

By grant size · FY2021

  • Under $10k2 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $107k
$24,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TREE HOUSE OF GREATER ST LOUIS$41,800
EQUINE-ASSISTED THERAPY INC$24,000
CEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENT$24,000
WONDERLAND CAMP$17,000
SHOWME AQUATICS AND FITNESS$7,200
EXCEPTIONAL EQUESTRIANS$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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%EXCEPTIONAL EQUESTRIANS: $6k → 9%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 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
Special Equestrians Inc

To provide therapeautic benefits to handicapped citizens through a horseback riding program.

Health
2
Special Equestrians Inc

Special Equestrians provides therapeutic riding programs to individuals with physical, mental, and emotional disabilities.

Recreation & Sports
3
Equest Center for Therapeutic Riding Inc

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.

Health
4
Therapeutic Riding of Tucson Inc

Empowering individuals with diverse abilities to reach their full potential through equine-assisted services since 1974.

Recreation & Sports
5
National Center for Equine Facilitated Therapy

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.

—
6
Hope Equestrian Center

To provide theraputic and recreational horseback riding for emotionally, physically and mentally challenged individuals.

—
7
Great Results Equine Assisted Therapies
Health
8
Woodland Strides
Health
9
Freedom Hooves Therapeutic Riding Center Inc

Dedicated to improving the quality of life for anyone with a physical, mental, or emotional disability through therapeutic riding and hippotherapy.

Health
10
Exceptional Equestrians Unlimited Inc

To provide professional therapeutic horseback riding activities for individuals who are mentally or physically challenged.

—
11
Hidden Acres Therapeutic Riding Center Inc

To improve the minds, bodies and spirits of children and adults with special needs through the benefits of therapeutic riding and equine assisted activities.

Health
12
Riding Emphasizing Individual Needs & Strengths

Provide therapeutic horsemanship to disabled individuals.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Exceptional Equestrians of the Missouri Valley Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

8 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TREE HOUSE OF GREATER ST LOUIS: $41,800 · HealthTREE HOUSE OF GREATER ST LOUISEQUINE-ASSISTED THERAPY INC: $24,000 · HealthEQUINE-ASSISTED THERAPY INCNAMI OF MISSOURI: $11,253 · HealthNAMI OF MISSOURISHOWME AQUATICS AND FITNESS: $7,200 · HealthSHOWME AQUATICS AND FITNESSCEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $24,000 · OtherCEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTERWONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATION: $17,000 · OtherWONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATIONSPECIAL OLYMPICS MISSOURI INC: $12,500 · OtherSPECIAL OLYMPICS MISSOURI INCEXCEPTIONAL EQUESTRIANS OF THE MISSOURI VALLEY INC: $6,000 · Human Services
Health$84,253Other$53,500Human Services$6,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTREE HOUSE OF GREATER ST LOUIS: $41,800 over 1y, 6.1% of budgetEQUINE-ASSISTED THERAPY INC: $24,000 over 1y, 5.5% of budgetCEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $24,000 over 1y, 6.0% of budgetWONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATION: $17,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetSPECIAL OLYMPICS MISSOURI INC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNAMI OF MISSOURI: $11,253 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetSHOWME AQUATICS AND FITNESS: $7,200 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetEXCEPTIONAL EQUESTRIANS OF THE MISSOURI VALLEY INC: $6,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Amazonsmile FoundationWA3× affinity7 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: 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 Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family Trust. 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%13%25%38%50%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 · 0–50%
    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.
    04Through Plinth

    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.

    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 8 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 2021, released 2021. 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 $243k 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 FY2021, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Charitable Trust of the Missouri Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph