Skip to content
Compass Health Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Compass Health Inc

To provide comprehensive, high quality, accessible and affordable healthcare to residents of missouri, while encouraging the personal and professional growth of staff.

$112k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$963kEducation$51kCommunity Improvement$26kPhilanthropy$12kRecreation & Sports$10kHuman Services$8kArts & Culture$5k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $59,748, the rows itemized in this filing. The $112,221 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $52,473 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
$7,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$457M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MISSOURI COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC$40,000
NAMI ST LOUIS$7,500
HEART OF MO UNITED WAY$6,148
GREATER CLINTON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE$6,100
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 (FY19–19, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA OF EASTERN MO: $8k → 21%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 90% of Compass Health Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in MO; by stated purpose, 10%.

Compass Health Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

56%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$595k · 5 repeat orgs$470k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +31% since the first grant, against +16% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
8

Total granted

$595k
$464k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+16%

Still filing today

80%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementHealthOther
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

  • CO
    CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
    2× · 2019–2021 · $461k
  • MC
    MISSOURI COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $80k · revenue -18%
  • NS
    NAMI St Louis
    5× · 2021–2025 · $33k · revenue -43%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF MO HEALTHCARE
    one grant, 2020 · $366k
  • GV
    GOLDEN VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT
    one grant, 2023 · $54k
  • CF
    CLINTON FRIENDS OF THE PARKS
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
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
Behavioral Health Network of Greater St

Behavioral Health Network is a collaborative effort of providers working together to improve our community by leading behavioral health planning and coordination.

Health
2
Missouri Centers for Independent Living
—
3
North County Inc

To promote the North St Louis County economy and community

—
4
Leadership Council Southwestern Illinois

Uniting the southwestern illinois and greater st. louis region for economic growth

—
5
St Louis Council of Construction Consumers

The slc3 is a community of design and construction industry professionals with a common interest in the betterment of our region through prioritizing innovation, continuing education, equity empowerment and all-inclusive workforce…

Community Improvement
6
Community Builders Network of Metro St Louis

The Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis (CBN) is a coalition of community building organizations, including both place-based nonprofits and supporting partners. Our mission is to gather community leaders of all backgrounds to…

Community Improvement
7
Committee for a Healthy Community

The committee for a healthy community was formed to support smoke free initiatives in the state of missouri specifically in st. louis and st. charles counties.

—
8
Community Clinic of Southwest Missouri

The mission of the community clinic of southwest missouri is to improve the health of people in our community without access to medical, dental, or mental health care.

—
9
Smithville Area Chamber of Commerce

To promote business activity for members and the city of smithville mo.

—
10
Community Response

"Develop and implement innovative solutions to social and public health issues that threaten the physical and/or mental health of underserved children, families and communities

Youth Development
11
St Charles Historical Society

Collection and preservation of historical documents pertaining to saint charles county, missouri and making them available to the general public

—
12
Small Business Empowerment Fund Cdfi

A community development financial institution or community development finance institution - abbreviated in both cases to CDFI - is a financial institution that provides credit and financial services to underserved markets and populations,…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Heart of Missouri United Way Inc; the most unlike its peers is Vision St Charles County Leadership Program. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

9 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. 9 of the 15 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: $460,872 · OtherCURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIUNIVERSITY OF MO HEALTHCARE: $365,916 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MO HEALTHCAREGOLDEN VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT: $54,050 · OtherGOLDEN VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT+6 more: $42,396 · OtherMISSOURI COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $80,000 · EducationMISSOURI …Vision St Charles County Leadership Program: $10,550 · EducationVision St…NAMI St Louis: $32,600 · HealthGREATER CLINTON AREA CHAMBER OF: $11,200 · Community ImprovementBOONE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyMANNA HARVEST INC: $7,500 · Human Services
Other$923,234Education$90,550Health$32,600Community Improvement$11,200Philanthropy$10,000Human Services$7,500

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 budgetMISSOURI COMMUNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION INC: $80,000 over 2y, 14% of budgetNAMI St Louis: $32,600 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetGREATER CLINTON AREA CHAMBER OF: $11,200 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetVision St Charles County Leadership Program: $10,550 over 2y, 8.4% of budgetCommunity Council of St Charles County: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetBOONE COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHEART OF MISSOURI UNITED WAY INC: $6,148 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF ST LOUIS: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

United Way of Greater…St Louis Community Fo…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Greater St Louis IncMO13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Greater St Louis Inc · St Louis Community Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Compass Health Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Compass Health Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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.

    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 15 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 Compass Health’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