Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Mission Outreach United Appeal Fund Inc

The Fund's purpose is to support the ministries of various Birmingham area social action groups including Canterbury United Methodist Church, Highlands United Methodist Church, Urban Ministry Outreach, Inc., the United Methodist Children's Home, and Camp Sumatanga.

$55k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$21k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Human Services$149kReligion$146kRecreation & Sports$10kCrime & Legal$250
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 3 grants below total $38,660 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $54,980 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $16,320 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 $10k2 grants · $17k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $21k
$8,885
Median grant
1
States reached
$76k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Canterbury United Methodist Church$21,440
Embrace Alabama Kids$8,885
Avondale Samaritan Place$8,335
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $91k) land where the poverty rate runs at 28%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%United Methodist Children's Home: $20k → 33%UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $16k → 33%UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME: $11k → 33%Embrace Alabama Kids: $9k → 33%United Methodist Children's Home: $8k → 33%Urban Ministry: $6k → 16%Urban Ministry: $2k → 16%URBAN MINISTRY: $1k → 16%URBAN MINISTRY: $500 → 16%FAIRHAVEN - METHODIST FOUNTAIN OF LOVE: $6k → 16%Fairhaven - Methodist Fountain of Love: $6k → 16%FAIRHAVEN - METHODIST FOUNTAIN OF LOVE: $5k → 16%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 100% of Mission Outreach United Appeal Fund Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in AL; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

Mission Outreach United Appeal Fund Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$306k · 10 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

10 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
0

Total granted

$306k
$0

Still filing today

40%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’24’25
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentOther

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

  • UM
    UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME
    9× · 2017–2025 · $65k · revenue +13%
  • MH
    METHODIST HOME FOR THE AGING DBA METHODIST HOMES CORPORATION
    6× · 2017–2024 · $16k · revenue +56%
  • CA
    Camp & Assembly Commission of the Methodist Churches of North Alabama
    6× · 2017–2024 · $10k · revenue +35%

Funded once

    Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Your field
    05the grantee network

    4 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 4 of the 10 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.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    0
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    4/4
    Grantees still filing
    3/4
    Grew since you first funded

    Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

    Canterbury United Methodist Church — $113,973 · OtherCanterbury United Methodist ChurchAVONDALE SAMARITAN PLACE LLC — $58,874 · OtherAVONDALE SAMARITAN PLACE LLCCHURCH OF THE RECONCILER UNITED METHODIST CHURCH — $15,216 · OtherCHURCH OF THE RECONCILER UNITED METHODIST CHURCHHIGHLANDS BIRMINGHAM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH — $10,191 · Other+2 more — $7,041 · OtherUNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME — $64,593 · Human ServicesUNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOMEMETHODIST HOME FOR THE AGING DBA METHODIST HOMES CORPORATION — $16,245 · Human ServicesMETHODIST HOME FOR THE AGING DBA …Urban Ministry Inc — $9,691 · Human ServicesUrban Ministry IncCamp & Assembly Commission of the Methodist Churches of North Alabama — $10,191 · Youth Development
    Other$205,295Human Services$90,529Youth Development$10,191

    Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetUNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME — $64,593 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetMETHODIST HOME FOR THE AGING DBA METHODIST HOMES CORPORATION — $16,245 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetCamp & Assembly Commission of the Methodist Churches of North Alabama — $10,191 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetUrban Ministry Inc — $9,691 over 6y, 0.6% of budget
    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 UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S HOME
    • Who funds METHODIST HOME FOR THE AGING DBA METHODIST HOMES CORPORATION
    • Who funds Camp & Assembly Commission of the Methodist Churches of North Alabama
    • Who funds Urban Ministry 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.

    The Daniel Foundation of AlabamaAL13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: The Daniel Foundation of Alabama · The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham · Alabama Power Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · 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 Mission Outreach United Appeal Fund Inc 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.

    2024
    202122232425
    no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%your 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
      0rely on government for over half their income
      ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
      typical government reliance, FY2025

      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.

      On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 10 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

      Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      More from the funding graph