Skip to content
Gordon Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Gordon Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$16k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$10k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Animals$24kReligion$22kArts & Culture$14kPublic Safety & Disaster$13kEducation$12kFood & Nutrition$11kHuman Services$7kHealth$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $6k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$1,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$340k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CENTRAL MISSOURI HUMANE SOCIETY$10,466
Curators of the University of Missouri$3,500
POLK COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY$1,000
PEOPLE HELPING PAWS DOG RESCUE$1,000
CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION$500
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 (FY23–23, $589) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, 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%Oats Inc: $589 → 17%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$110k · 23 repeat orgs$14k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against +13% for those funded once.

23 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

23
13

Total granted

$110k
$13k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+13%

Still filing today

35%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsFood & NutritionHuman ServicesHealthPhilanthropyArts & CultureOther
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

  • CM
    CENTRAL MISSOURI HUMANE SOCIETY
    7× · 2017–2025 · $15k · revenue +184%
  • CC
    CEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER
    5× · 2019–2024 · $6k · revenue +24%
  • CF
    CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION
    7× · 2017–2025 · $5k · revenue +29%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $2k
  • CF
    CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP SCHOOL
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • CC
    CEDAR CREEK RIDING CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
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
Humane Society of Southwest Missouri

The humane society of southwest missouri is one of the largest open admission, no kill shelters in southwest missouri. it is dedicated to helping sick, injured and abandoned dogs and cats find their forever homes. for over 60 years the…

Animals
2
Columbia Gorge Humane Society

Columbia Gorge Humane Society is committed to promoting healthy, safe and lifelong relationships between people and their pets through sustainable programs of education, adoption and spay/neutering. We will endeavor to fight for the abused…

Animals
3
Columbia Humane Society

To assist the community in the successful rehoming (and training) of adoptable animals.

Animals
4
Safe Harbor Animal Sanctuary

Protect and rescue abandoned and at-risk animals.

Animals
5
Phelps County Animal Rescue

provide shelter and care for dogs and cats

Animals
6
Greyhound Companions of Missouri

Rescue retired greyhounds and place in homes

—
7
Paws Animal Rescue Center

To help rescue unwanted pets

Animals
8
Herding Dog Rescue of Central Oregon

Our mission is to help herding dogs who are abandoned, neglected and abused or simply in the wrong home into a loving appropriate home.

Animals
9
Mid Missouri Malamute Rescue
Animals
10
Humane Society of Monroe County Il

The organization rescues animals and cares for them until they can find them qualified homes.

Animals
11
Carolina Animal Network

we are a small animal rescue. We help the community by assisting with vet care and rehoming animals they cannot keep. We also pull dogs cats kittens and puppies from local kill shelters when they run out of space, we provide those animals…

Animals
12
Jefferson County Humane Society Inc

Animal protection and preservation

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Central Missouri Humane Society; the most unlike its peers is Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. 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

15 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. 15 of the 37 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)
14/15
Grantees still filing
10/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH: $17,500 · OtherCALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCHCOLUMBIA POLICE FOUNDATION: $13,225 · OtherCOLUMBIA POLICE FOUNDATIONCurators of the University of Missouri: $10,839 · OtherCurators of the University of MissouriCEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $5,600 · OtherCEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTERTHE CROSSING: $4,400 · OtherDAUVE FUND FOR EXCELLENCE: $4,300 · OtherTHE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL &: $3,200 · OtherMEALS ON WHEELS: $3,000 · OtherCOLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: $3,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $3,000 · Other+13 more: $16,884 · Other+13 moreCENTRAL MISSOURI HUMANE SOCIETY: $15,416 · AnimalsCENTRAL MISSOURI HUM…UNCHAINED MELODIES INC: $2,100 · AnimalsUNCHAINED MELODIES I…Boone County Animal Care: $2,000 · AnimalsBoone County Animal …POLK COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $1,500 · AnimalsPOLK COUNTY HUMANE S…PEOPLE HELPING PAWS DOG RESCUE: $1,000 · Animals+1 more: $500 · AnimalsMEALS ON WHEELS OF COLUMBIA INC: $2,600 · Food & NutritionTHE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL & NORTHEAST MISSOURI: $2,500 · Food & NutritionCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $4,700 · HealthVOLUNTARY ACTION CENTER: $4,000 · PhilanthropyOATS INC: $589 · Human ServicesCOLUMBIA SECOND CHANCE: $500 · Human ServicesBOONE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $1,000 · Arts & CultureCENTRAL MISSOURI HONOR FLIGHT INC: $750 · Public Benefit
Other$84,948Animals$22,516Food & Nutrition$5,100Health$4,700Philanthropy$4,000Human Services$1,089Arts & Culture$1,000Public Benefit$750

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCENTRAL MISSOURI HUMANE SOCIETY: $15,416 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetCEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER: $5,600 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetCYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION: $4,700 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetVOLUNTARY ACTION CENTER: $4,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetMEALS ON WHEELS OF COLUMBIA INC: $2,600 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetTHE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL & NORTHEAST MISSOURI: $2,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUNCHAINED MELODIES INC: $2,100 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetBoone County Animal Care: $2,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetPOLK COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $1,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetBOONE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $1,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPEOPLE HELPING PAWS DOG RESCUE: $1,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetCENTRAL MISSOURI HONOR FLIGHT INC: $750 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetOATS INC: $589 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOLUMBIA SECOND CHANCE: $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 CENTRAL MISSOURI HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds CEDAR CREEK THERAPEUTIC RIDING CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CYSTIC FIBROSIS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds VOLUNTARY ACTION CENTER ↗
  • Who funds MEALS ON WHEELS OF COLUMBIA INC ↗
  • Who funds THE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL & NORTHEAST MISSOURI ↗
  • Who funds UNCHAINED MELODIES INC ↗
  • Who funds Boone County Animal Care ↗
  • Who funds POLK COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds BOONE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds PEOPLE HELPING PAWS DOG RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds CENTRAL MISSOURI HONOR FLIGHT INC ↗
  • Who funds OATS INC ↗
  • Who funds BARNIES PLACE FELINE RESCUE ↗
  • Who funds COLUMBIA SECOND CHANCE ↗

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.

Veterans United Found…Boone Electric Commun…Orscheln Industries F…Mightycause Charitabl…Fred V & Dorothy H He…Boone County Communit…Stafford Family Chari…Allen P and Josephine…Petsmart Charities IncEdward Jones Foundati…Paypal Charitable Giv…Network for Good
Veterans United FoundationMO25.5× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Veterans United Foundation · Boone Electric Community Trust · Orscheln Industries Foundation Inc · Mightycause Charitable Foundation · Fred V & Dorothy H Heinkel Charitable Foundation · Boone County Community Trust · Stafford Family Charitable Trust · Allen P and Josephine B Green · Petsmart Charities Inc · Edward Jones Foundation · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Network for Good

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 Gordon Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gordon Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 37 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Gordon’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