Skip to content
Conservation Foundation of Missouri Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Conservation Foundation of Missouri Charitable Trust

Its FY2022 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$64k
Granted FY2022
3
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$37k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Environment$217kEducation$87kRecreation & Sports$11kAnimals$4kPublic Safety & Disaster$3k
02FY2022 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2022

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $63k
$26,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$962k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Conservation Federation of Missouri$37,324
Individual grant recipient$26,000
MO Stream Team Watershed Coal$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–22) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 12% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Missouri Hunting Heritage Federatio: $2k → 8%Conservation Federation of Missouri: $42k → 10%Missouri Caves and Karst Conservancy: $2k → 11%Missouri Prairie Foundation: $800 → 15%Wild Souls Wildlife Rescue and Reham: $500 → 15%MO Stream Team Watershed Coal: $5k → 15%Missouri River Bird Observatory: $3k → 15%Missouri Rock Island Trail Inc: $4k → 16%Ozark Regional Land Trust: $1k → 17%Ozark Trail Association: $2k → 20%Forrest ReLeaf of Missouri: $500 → 21%Missouri Hunting Heritage Federatio: $2k → 8%Conservation Federation of Missouri: $40k → 10%Missouri Caves and Karst Conservancy: $1k → 11%Missouri Prairie Foundation: $800 → 15%MO Stream Team Watershed Coal: $5k → 15%Conservation Federation of Missouri: $37k → 10%Open Space Council: $1k → 11%MO Stream Team Watershed Coal: $1k → 15%Conservation Federation of Missouri: $30k → 10%Open Space Council: $950 → 11%Conservation Federation of Missouri: $25k → 10%Conservation Federation of Missouri: $25k → 10%Missouri Parks and Rec Association: $5k → 10%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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$305k · 7 repeat orgs$16k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +70% since the first grant, against +69% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2022, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
7

Total granted

$305k
$16k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
+69%

Still filing today

43%
57%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
EnvironmentAnimalsPublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • CF
    CONSERVATION FEDERATION OF MISSOURI
    6× · 2017–2022 · $199k · revenue +9%
  • MH
    MISSOURI HUNTING HERITAGE FEDERATION INC
    2× · 2019–2020 · $3k · revenue +70%
  • MP
    Missouri Prairie Foundation
    2× · 2019–2020 · $2k · revenue +191%

Funded once

  • MP
    Missouri Parks and Rec Association
    one grant, 2019 · $5k
  • MR
    MISSOURI ROCK ISLAND TRAIL INCORPORATED
    one grant, 2020 · $4k
  • MR
    MISSOURI RIVER BIRD OBSERVATORYgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $3k · revenue +132%
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 14 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
6/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONSERVATION FEDERATION OF MISSOURI: $198,823 · EnvironmentCONSERVATION FEDERATION OF MISSOURI+4 more: $5,100 · EnvironmentIndividual grant recipient: $86,876 · OtherIndividual grant recipientMO Stream Team Watershed Coal: $10,475 · OtherMO Stream Team Watershed CoalMissouri Parks and Rec Association: $5,000 · OtherMISSOURI ROCK ISLAND TRAIL INCORPORATED: $4,000 · Other+3 more: $4,979 · OtherMISSOURI RIVER BIRD OBSERVATORY: $3,000 · AnimalsMISSOURI HUNTING HERITAGE FEDERATION INC: $3,000 · Public Safety & Disaster
Environment$203,923Other$111,330Animals$3,000Public Safety & Disaster$3,000

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 budgetCONSERVATION FEDERATION OF MISSOURI: $198,823 over 6y, 3.6% of budgetMISSOURI HUNTING HERITAGE FEDERATION INC: $3,000 over 2y, 2.5% of budgetOZARK TRAIL ASSOCIATION: $2,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetMissouri Prairie Foundation: $1,600 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOZARK REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC DBA OZARK LAND TRUST: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFOREST RELEAF OF MISSOURI: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

  • Who funds CONSERVATION FEDERATION OF MISSOURI ↗
  • Who funds MISSOURI RIVER BIRD OBSERVATORY ↗
  • Who funds MISSOURI HUNTING HERITAGE FEDERATION INC ↗
  • Who funds OZARK TRAIL ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds Missouri Prairie Foundation ↗
  • Who funds OZARK REGIONAL LAND TRUST INC DBA OZARK LAND TRUST ↗
  • Who funds FOREST RELEAF OF MISSOURI ↗

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 Foundation
Amazonsmile FoundationWA3× affinity8 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 Conservation Foundation of Missouri Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Conservation Foundation of Missouri Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%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
    1report 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 Conservation Foundation of Missouri Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Conservation Foundation of Missouri Charitable 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 14 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Conservation Foundation of Missouri’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