· Public charity
Missouri Bar Foundation
To relieve, aid and assist as charitable acts deserving members of the bar who shall be ill, incapacitated or superannuated and in need of aid or the dependents of deceased members of the bar who shall be ill, incapacitated or superannuated and in need of aid; the advancement of the science of jurisprudence and research therein; the…
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 1 grants below total $6,175 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $22,675 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $16,500 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.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE MISSOURI BAR | $6,175 |
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 (FY17–20, $18k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, 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.
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.
7 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- LSLEGAL SERVICES OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC5× · 2017–2023 · $95k · revenue +119%
- LALegal Aid of Western Missouri3× · 2017–2021 · $56k · revenue +14%
- LSLegal Services of Southern Missouri3× · 2017–2023 · $32k · revenue +100%
Funded once
- ILInnovation Law Labgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $9k · revenue +132%
- UOUNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $7k · revenue +140%
- FSFATHERS SUPPORT CENTER ST LOUISone grant, 2017 · $7k · revenue -2%
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.
SLSLS provides victims of domestic violence the assistance they need in filing petitions for orders of protection and obtaining full orders of protection in court.
South carolina legal services is a statewide law firm that provides civil legal services to protect the rights and represent the interests of low income south carolinians.
Promotion, support, and coordination of activities to improve the legal system in Missouri through education, research and legislative reforms.
To provide civil legal services to the poor, to improve the administration of justice; and to promote other programs for the benefit of the public as are approved by the supreme court of missouri.
Standing with our neighbors, Lakeshore Legal Aid fights poverty and injustice through advocacy and by providing meaningful and dignified access to the legal system.
To enforce, advance and defend the civil legal rights of low income and vulnerable people, especially on behalf of elderly, children, victims of domestic violence and persons with disabilities, by providing free, civil legal assistance to…
Kansas legal services is devoted to helping low income kansans meet their basic needs through the provision of important legal and mediation services.
Immigration Legal Services and Advocacy (ISLA) provides direct representation to indigent detained immigrants throughout Louisiana on a pro bono basis and under a universal representation model. ISLA provides information to the public to…
Legal aid's mission is to 'make justice real' - in individual and systemic ways - for persons living in poverty in the district of columbia. in particular, legal aid provides civil legal assistance to individuals, families, and communities…
Work with DC courts, private bar & legal services providers to increase legal representations for low & moderate income DC residents, enhance efficiency of legal services, and reduce barriers to the judicial system.
At legal aid chicago, we work together to provide high quality civil legal aid to people living in poverty and other vulnerable groups.through advocacy, education, collaboration, and litigation we empower individuals, protect fundamental…
The st. louis bar foundation promotes the rule of law and the administration of justice in both our society and within the legal profession. the foundation seeks to improve the administration of justice in our community through law related…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mid-Missouri Legal Services and the most unlike its peers is Appleseed Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
11 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. 11 of the 16 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 LEGAL SERVICES OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC ↗
- Who funds Legal Aid of Western Missouri ↗
- Who funds Legal Services of Southern Missouri ↗
- Who funds MID-MISSOURI LEGAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds Migrant and Immigrant Community Action Project ↗
- Who funds Innovation Law Lab ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds FATHERS SUPPORT CENTER ST LOUIS ↗
- Who funds KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN BAR FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ARCHCITY DEFENDERS ↗
- Who funds APPLESEED FOUNDATION 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: Missouri Lawyer Trust Account Foundation · Equal Justice Works · St Louis Community Foundation Inc · Legal Services Corporation · Trio Foundation of St Louis · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc
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 Missouri Bar Foundation 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Missouri Bar Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Missouri Bar Foundation 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.