· Private foundation
Dane and Carter Brooksher Family Foundation dated 722018
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k31 grants · $67k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $135k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Missouri Botanical Garden | $25,000 |
| William & Mary Business School Foundation | $25,000 |
| Elsberry Ministerial Alliance | $20,000 |
| The Brent Shapiro Foundation | $15,000 |
| Roaring Fork Conservancy | $10,000 |
| University at Buffalo Foundation Inc | $10,000 |
| Siteman Cancer Center | $10,000 |
| Food Bank of the Rockies | $10,000 |
| American Cancer Society | $10,000 |
| Elsberry R-II School District | $8,000 |
| Elsberry United Methodist Church | $5,200 |
| French Colonial America | $5,000 |
| Food Bank of the Rockies | $5,000 |
| Colorado Coalition for the Homeless | $5,000 |
| Natural Resources Defense Council | $3,000 |
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 (FY25–25, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
13 repeat relationships — 11 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 20 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, 41% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $119k 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
- MBMISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES4× · 2021–2025 · $71k · revenue +28%
- RFROARING FORK CONSERVANCY5× · 2019–2025 · $46k · revenue +61%
- MCMissouri Cattlemen's Association2× · 2024–2025 · $1k · revenue +34%
Funded once
- MHMERCY HEALTH FOUNDATION SOUTHgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue +41%
- CGCARDINAL GLENNON CHILDREN'S FOUNDATIONone grant, 2024 · $3k · revenue 0%
- FMFIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORYgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $1k · revenue +28%
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.
The fsmb serves as the voice for state medical boards, supporting them through education, assessment, research and advocacy while providing services and initiatives that promote patient safety, quality health care and regulatory best…
The mission of the rocky mountain elk foundation (rmef) is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage. our mission includes four core programs; land protection and access, hunting heritage, habitat…
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
The missouri western state university foundation is a not-for-profit charitable organization that functions solely to support the mission of missouri western state university, as stated in the university's mission statement. the foundation…
Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…
American gas association's (the association) mission is to develop and advocate for informed, innovative, and durable policy that fulfills our nation's energy needs, environmental aspirations and economic potential. we are committed to…
To promote education and research in the college of natural resources of north carolina state university as well as aid and promote, by financial assistance and otherwise, all types of education, research and extension in the college of…
Sfn's mission is to: 1. advance the understanding of the brain and the nervous system by bringing together scientists of all segments of neuroscience, by facilitating the integration of research directed at all levels of biological…
To build relationships with alumni and friends in order to secure private funds and other resources for the benefit of the university of southern mississippi (usm). the foundation receives, invests and distributes private gifts in support…
The missouri historical society (mhs) is a missouri pro forma decree, not-for-profit corporation whose primary functions are educational and community programs; collections and conservation; library and research; and exhibitions.…
To be the leading voice of medicine to make minnesota the healthiest state and the best place to practice.
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Missouri Botanical Garden Board of Trustees and the most unlike its peers is Speak Rescue and Sanctuary. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 49 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
26 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. 26 of the 37 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 William & Mary Business School Foundation ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES ↗
- Who funds ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds FOOD BANK OF THE ROCKIES ↗
- Who funds THE BRENT SHAPIRO FOUNDATION FOR DRUG AWARENESS ↗
- Who funds University at Buffalo Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds FRENCH COLONIAL AMERICA ↗
- Who funds MERCY HEALTH FOUNDATION SOUTH ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds JOSEPH R PALMER FAMILY MEMORIAL LIBRARY ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds SAINT LOUIS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ↗
- Who funds CARDINAL GLENNON CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE SAINT LOUIS ZOO ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Colorado Foundation ↗
- Who funds EASTERN SHORE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INC ↗
- Who funds Speak Rescue and Sanctuary ↗
- Who funds LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATION FUND INC ↗
- Who funds ST LOUIS REGIONAL PUBLIC MEDIA INC ↗
- Who funds FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ↗
- Who funds Missouri Cattlemen's Association ↗
- Who funds RAINTREE ARTS COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds HOME CARE & HOSPICE FOUNDATION ↗
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: The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Dane and Carter Brooksher Family Foundation dated 722018 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.