Skip to content
Gp Made Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Gp Made Foundation Inc

Making a difference everyday in the life and future of children and youth facing difficult challenges.

$196k
Granted FY2023
6
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$30k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Human Services$96kHealth$85kEducation$65kRecreation & Sports$61kAnimals$20kYouth Development$18kCivil Rights$15kCrime & Legal$10kOther$0
02FY2023 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $118,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $195,900 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $77,900 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.
$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$569k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Individual grant recipient$30,000
Special Learning Center in Jefferson City$25,000
Ronald McDonald House Charities$25,000
United Community Builders$15,000
Wonderland Camp$13,000
Citizens Against Domestic Violence$10,000
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 (FY20–23, $80k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%United Community Builders: $20k → 17%United Community Builders: $15k → 17%United Community Builders: $15k → 17%Love Columbia: $18k → 17%Love Columbia Corp: $13k → 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.
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 11% of Gp Made Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 58% of the giving stays in MO; by stated purpose, 53%.

Gp Made Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.9% directed abroad (not shown)
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.

34%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$126k · 4 repeat orgs$244k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +111% since the first grant, against -12% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2023, 2 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
12

Total granted

$126k
$154k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+111%
-12%

Still filing today

100%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 24% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $90k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23
Human ServicesHealthYouth DevelopmentEducationOther
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

  • UC
    UNITED COMMUNITY BUILDERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO
    3× · 2020–2023 · $50k · revenue ×35
  • LC
    Love Columbia Corp Love Columbia
    2× · 2021–2022 · $30k · revenue +111%
  • WC
    WONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATION
    2× · 2019–2023 · $28k · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • CF
    Council for Special Services
    one grant, 2020 · $16k
  • BC
    BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC
    one grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue -28%
  • EF
    Ellis Fischell Cancer Center
    one grant, 2022 · $15k
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
Children's Law Center of Central North Carolina

We provide children with quality legal advocacy focusing on domestic violence issues, high conflict custody cases and the rights of children in public education. our vision is to increase children's potential to become emotionally healthy…

Crime & Legal
2
Missouri Child Care Resource and Referral Network

Child care aware of missouri raises the quality of early child care educational experiences in missouri by improving child care services - through training, education, quality standards, coaching, business support, and public policy work.

Human Services
3
Family and Children's Services of Centra

To transform the lives of children and adults by providing opportunities to build self-confidence, resilience and hope.

Human Services
4
Charlotte Center City Partners

Charlotte center city partners (cccp) boldly envisions and activates strategies and actions that will assure charlotte center city is a welcoming and equitable, economically vibrant, culturally rich and beloved place for all.

—
5
Child Care Answers of Central Indiana

To improve the well-being, care and education for the whole child.

Human Services
6
Community Action Program for Central Arkansas

In partnership with our community, capca is committed to educating eligible participants by providing quality services which empower lives, expand self-reliance and increase community involvement.

Human Services
7
Ability Kc

Our mission is to build brighter futures for children and adults with disabilities by providing comprehensive medical, therapeutic, educational, and vocational services.

—
8
Childrens Center

The mission of childrens center is to support and medically assess children who are suspected victims of abuse or neglect.

Crime & Legal
9
Jackson County Community Children's Services Fund

Children's services fund ('csf') is an innovative way to support child well-being projects. while we are funded by a jackson county sales tax, we are a stand-alone organization led by an independent board. (continued on schedule o)we are…

Human Services
10
Capital Community Partners
—
11
Center for Child Counseling Inc

Center for child counseling is building the foundation for playful, healthful, and hopeful living for children, families, and communities.

Education
12
Children's Cancer Research Fund

Children's cancer research fund fuels transformational research to bring better treatments and cures to children with cancer.

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Capital City Area Council for Special Services; the most unlike its peers is Citizens Against Domestic Violence. 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, 2017–2025.

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. 9 of the 20 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
4/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATION: $28,000 · OtherWONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATIONRonald McDonald House Charities: $25,000 · OtherRonald McDonald House CharitiesSpecial Learning Center in Jefferson City: $25,000 · OtherSpecial Learning Center in Jefferson CityCouncil for Special Services: $16,000 · OtherCouncil for Special ServicesEllis Fischell Cancer Center: $15,000 · OtherEllis Fischell Cancer CenterColumbia Youth Football League: $15,000 · OtherColumbia Youth Football LeagueRALLYFORRHYAN: $15,000 · OtherRALLYFORRHYANTHE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S CANCER SOCIETY: $15,000 · OtherTHE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S CANCER SOCIETYHEART OF MISSOURI UNITED WAY INC: $10,000 · OtherMU Health Care: $10,000 · OtherChildrens Miracle Network: $10,000 · OtherUniveristy of Missouri Health Care: $10,000 · OtherCITIZENS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: $10,000 · Other+1 more: $7,500 · OtherUNITED COMMUNITY BUILDERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO: $50,000 · Human ServicesUNITED COMMUNITY BUILDER…Love Columbia Corp Love Columbia: $30,000 · Human ServicesLove Columbia Corp Love …BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF CENTRAL MISSOURI INC: $17,500 · Youth DevelopmentBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $15,000 · HealthCAPITAL CITY AREA COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL SERVICES: $15,000 · Education
Other$241,500Human Services$80,000Youth Development$17,500Health$15,000Education$15,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNITED COMMUNITY BUILDERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO: $50,000 over 3y, 13% of budgetLove Columbia Corp Love Columbia: $30,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetWONDERLAND CAMP FOUNDATION: $28,000 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF CENTRAL MISSOURI INC: $17,500 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S CANCER SOCIETY: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCAPITAL CITY AREA COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL SERVICES: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetHEART OF MISSOURI UNITED WAY INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCITIZENS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% 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.

Veterans United Found…Je and le Mabee Found…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Veterans United FoundationMO15.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Veterans United Foundation · Je and le Mabee Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Gp Made Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Gp Made Foundation 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%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Gp Made Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Gp Made Foundation Inc 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 20 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $227k 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 FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Gp Made’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