Skip to content
Missouri Community Action Network at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Missouri Community Action Network

To advocate for low-income Missourians at the local, state, and national levels; and strengthen the Community Action Network through training, technical assistance, and the administration of programs that improve the lives of low-income families and communities.

$2.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$314k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Employment$5.6MCommunity Improvement$2.6MHuman Services$1.1M
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $1,842,569, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,996,568 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $153,999 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.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k10 grants · $1.5M
  • $250k+1 grant · $314k
$145,525
Median grant
1
States reached
$4.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Ozark Action Inc$313,689
Delta Area Economic Opportunity Corporation$246,422
South Central Missouri Community Action Agency$233,976
West Central Missouri Community Action Agency$170,788
Community Action Partnership of Greater St Joseph$157,994
Community Action Agency of St Louis County$145,525
East Missouri Action Agency$140,973
Central Missouri Community Action$113,242
Jefferson-Franklin Community Action Corporation$110,917
North East Community Action Corporation$106,012
Missouri Valley Community Action Agency$103,031
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 (FY20–24, $1.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 19%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Ozark Action Inc: $428k → 19%Ozark Action Inc: $314k → 19%Ozark Action Inc: $174k → 19%Ozark Action Inc: $150k → 19%Ozark Action Inc: $141k → 19%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.2M · 11 repeat orgs$146k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +25% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
1

Total granted

$9.2M
$146k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+25%
-8%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $146k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementHuman ServicesOther
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

  • NE
    NORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +16%
  • DA
    DELTA AREA ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +29%
  • OA
    OZARK ACTION INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +18%

Funded once

  • CA
    COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF ST LOUIS COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2024 · $146k · revenue -8%
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
Missouri Ozarks Community Action Inc

To prepare and enable all persons to become self-sustaining, hereby enhancing the families and communities of tomorrow.

Community Improvement
2
Ozarks Area Community Action Corporation

Alleviating the causes and conditions of poverty in a ten county area of Southwest Missouri.

Human Services
3
Community Action Agency of Southern New Mexico Inc

Caasnm is a 60 year-old new mexico statewide health and social services not for profit with a mission of uplifting low-income families by connecting communities, encouraging family wellness, empowering families, and bridging resources.

Human Services
4
Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama Inc

Our mission is to reduce the causes and adverse consequences of poverty and to empower low-income individuals, families and communities to achieve self-sufficiency through advocacy, resource utilization and service delivery.

—
5
Multi-Purpose Community Action Agency Inc

Multi-purpose caa eliminates barriers to economic self-sufficiency for low income families and senior citizens through community supports and partnerships.

Human Services
6
Community Action Agency Inc

To aid low income families with early education, energy assistance, nutrition help and other services.

Human Services
7
Mid-Columbia Community Action Council

To alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in Wasco, Hood River, and Sherman Counties. The purpose of MCCAC shall be the promotion of self sufficiency in families and individuals within the low income economic ranges in the three…

—
8
South Central Community Action Partnership Inc

To provide a wide range of services in an effort to help improve the quality of life for people with an economic disadvantage.

—
9
Community Action for Improvement Inc

The mission of community action for improvement, inc. is to build sustainable communities with partners by providing services and resources utilizing the whole family approach with low-income households to help reduce the burdens of…

—
10
Community Action Commission of Belmont County

Community assistance

Human Services
11
East Central Illinois Community Action Agency Inc

The mission of east central illinois community action agency is to eradicate poverty; engage, empower and enrich individuals, families, and communities to become self-sufficient by providing information, training, and partnership services.

—
12
Community Action Board

To partner with the community to eliminate poverty and create social change through advocacy and essential services.

Employment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Central Missouri Community Action; the most unlike its peers is Ozark Action Inc. 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

12 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
11/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES: $1,318,624 · OtherNORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIESDELTA AREA ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $1,295,280 · OtherDELTA AREA ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATIONWEST CENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $1,115,334 · OtherWEST CENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCYCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF GREATER ST JOSEPH: $1,031,874 · OtherCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF GREATER ST JOSEPHCENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION: $1,000,478 · OtherCENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTIONJEFFERSON FRANKLIN COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION: $464,587 · OtherJEFFERSON FRANKLIN COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATIONMISSOURI VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $405,775 · OtherMISSOURI VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY+2 more: $185,386 · OtherSouth Central Missouri Community Action Agency: $736,498 · Community ImprovementSouth Central M…EAST MISSOURI ACTION AGENCY INC: $555,263 · Community ImprovementEAST MISSOURI A…OZARK ACTION INC: $1,206,746 · Human ServicesOZARK ACTION I…
Other$6,817,338Community Improvement$1,291,761Human Services$1,206,746

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNORTH EAST COMMUNTIY ACTION CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES: $1,318,624 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetDELTA AREA ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY CORPORATION: $1,295,280 over 5y, 1.5% of budgetOZARK ACTION INC: $1,206,746 over 5y, 3.3% of budgetWEST CENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $1,115,334 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF GREATER ST JOSEPH: $1,031,874 over 5y, 2.5% of budgetCENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION: $1,000,478 over 5y, 1.6% of budgetSouth Central Missouri Community Action Agency: $736,498 over 5y, 1.6% of budgetEAST MISSOURI ACTION AGENCY INC: $555,263 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetJEFFERSON FRANKLIN COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION: $464,587 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetMISSOURI VALLEY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $405,775 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetCOMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY OF ST LOUIS COUNTY INC: $145,525 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetNORTHEAST MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: $39,861 over 2y, 0.4% 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.

United Way of Greater…Spire FoundationCommunity Foundation …Amazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Greater St Louis IncMO17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Greater St Louis Inc · Spire Foundation · Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc · 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 Missouri Community Action Network funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Missouri Community Action Network. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 12 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Missouri Community Action Network’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