· Public charity
Masonic Home of Missouri
To assist eligible adults and children in need by practicing the principles of freemasonry.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 60 grants below total $993,753 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $2,597,583 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,603,830 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k29 grants · $204k
- $10k–50k29 grants · $656k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $133k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE LLC | $77,119 |
| CHILDREN'S HAVEN OF SW MISSOURI | $56,250 |
| CLARK COUNTY R-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT | $46,500 |
| KIRKSVILLE R-III SCHOOL DISTRICT | $45,121 |
| CITY OF GREENVILLE | $45,000 |
| GREENVILLE R-II SCHOOL DISTRICT | $44,910 |
| KEARNEY ENRICHMENT COUNCIL | $42,690 |
| CLINTON COUNTY R-III SCHOOL DISTRICT | $36,000 |
| THE LAWSON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $35,700 |
| CAPE GIRARDEAU PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION | $33,000 |
| FAIRFAX OPTIMIST CLUB OF FAIRFAX MO | $30,000 |
| WILLARD CHILDRENS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION | $25,200 |
| TURNEY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH | $22,500 |
| CLEARWATER FAMILY YOUTH CENTER | $21,435 |
| CARE TO LEARN | $20,823 |
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 (FY22–25, $192k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 55% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +10% since the first grant, against +9% for the ones you funded once.
57 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2025, 19 since wound down; 22 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, 69% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $312k 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
- FFFoundation for Springfield Public Schools7× · 2019–2025 · $66k · revenue +39%
- CTCare to Learn3× · 2023–2025 · $48k · revenue +10%
- HFHONOR FLIGHT NETWORK OF KANSAS CITY2× · 2018–2024 · $25k · revenue +39% · 32% of their budget
Funded once
- CRCANTON R-V SCHOOL DISTRICTone grant, 2024 · $45k
- RPROCK PORT YOUTH ATHLETICS ASSOCIATION INCone grant, 2023 · $45k
- PHPARK HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATION FOUNDATIONone grant, 2023 · $42k · revenue -8%
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.
Promotion of child care excellence in missouri
Child abuse/neglect prevention
Representation and support of missouri educators.
Provide educational opportunities for members of the missouri retired teachers association and to provide teacher classroom grants and support staff grants in the state of missouri
Empowering missouri families of children and youth with disabilities (birth through age 26) through free training, resources, and support to improve educational outcomes and ease the transition to adult life.
Assistance to police officers and their families.
Providing day care services to infants and children of low income families in northern st. louis county, missouri
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…
To promote and help provide excellence in teaching in each classroom of the jefferson city public school district.
Kids Win Missouri furthers child well-being by advancing the health, education, safety and development of Missouri children and their families, especially those who are at-risk because of poverty, abuse, neglect, racial inequities or other…
The kansas children's foundation is dedicated to providing resources including financial and emotional support to children and families across the state of kansas.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc and the most unlike its peers is Paws 4 Autism. 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 22 years old; the field is 24. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 4% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 12% 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.
43 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. 43 of the 133 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 CHILDREN'S HAVEN OF SOUTHWEST MISSO ↗
- Who funds THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTHWEST MISSOURIINC ↗
- Who funds LAWSON COMMUNITY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds SLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE INC ↗
- Who funds KEARNEY ENRICHMENT COUNCIL ↗
- Who funds PTA MISSOURI CONGRESS ↗
- Who funds Foundation for Springfield Public Schools ↗
- Who funds Care to Learn ↗
- Who funds PARK HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATION FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CAPE GIRARDEAU PUBLIC SCHOOL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds OPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds GREATER SAINT LOUIS HONOR FLIGHT INC ↗
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: Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Veterans United Foundation · Project Lead the Way Inc · Arvest Foundation · Ozarks Food Harvest Inc · American Water Charitable Foundationinc · Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation · Project Lead the Way Inc · The National Association for the Exchange of Industrial Resources Inc · St Louis Community Foundation · World Wide Technology 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 Masonic Home of Missouri 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.