Skip to content
Missouri Court Appointed Special Advocate Association at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Missouri Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

MISSOURI COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION advocates for the best interest of abused and neglected children by promoting and supporting the development, growth and continuation of quality court appointed special advocate programs and services to benefit children throughout missouri.

$863k
Granted FY2025still arriving
23
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$89k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Crime & Legal$2.3MHuman Services$293kCivil Rights$229kInternational$74kOther$0
02FY2025 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k18 grants · $473k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $389k
$26,363
Median grant
1
States reached
$664k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
JACKSON COUNTY CASA$88,551
CASA OF SOUTHWEST MISSOURI$87,828
CASA OF MIDEAST MO$73,991
CASA OF ST LOUIS$71,205
HEART OF MISSOURI CASA$67,861
JASPER COUNTY CASA$44,714
CASA OF SOUTH CENTRAL MO$44,557
CASA OF JEFFERSON COUNTY$36,165
CAPITAL CITY CASA$30,754
VOICES FOR CHILDRENCASA$29,219
NEW-MAC CASA$26,494
CASA OF THE 36TH JUDICIAL COURT$26,363
Individual grant recipient$26,309
CASA OF THE PARKLAND$25,660
Individual grant recipient$24,883
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 (FY19–25, $448k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 66% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%FRANKLIN COUNTY CASA: $79k → 9%15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $21k → 11%DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $21k → 12%CASA OF THE PARKLAND: $26k → 15%15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $21k → 11%DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $20k → 12%CASA OF THE PARKLAND: $23k → 15%FRANKLIN COUNTY CASA: $19k → 9%15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $16k → 11%DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $13k → 12%CASA OF THE PARKLAND: $22k → 15%FRANKLIN COUNTY CASA: $15k → 9%15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $10k → 11%DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $10k → 12%CASA OF THE PARKLAND: $16k → 15%FRANKLIN COUNTY CASA: $15k → 9%15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $10k → 11%DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $10k → 12%CASA OF THE PARKLAND: $10k → 15%FRANKLIN COUNTY CASA: $13k → 9%15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $10k → 11%DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $10k → 12%CASA OF THE PARKLAND: $10k → 15%FRANKLIN COUNTY CASA: $13k → 9%15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $10k → 11%DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES: $10k → 12%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.
$3.2M · 24 repeat orgs$74k to everyone else

24 repeat relationships: 22 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

24
1

Total granted

$3.2M
$74k

Still filing today

54%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $74k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Crime & LegalCivil RightsHuman 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

  • CA
    COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF SOUTHWEST MISSOURI
    7× · 2019–2025 · $300k · revenue +140%
  • HO
    HEART OF MISSOURI CASA
    7× · 2019–2025 · $238k · revenue +476%
  • JC
    JACKSON COUNTY CASA
    7× · 2019–2025 · $236k · revenue +75%

Funded once

  • CO
    CASA OF MIDEAST MO
    one grant, 2025 · $74k
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
Mid-Ozark Casa Program

The program provides organization structure, leadership and training for community volunteers who serve as court appointed special advocates(casa) for agbused and neglected children in south central missouri.

Community Improvement
2
Casa of Johnson County Inc

Recruit and train community volunteers to speak out for abused and neglected children in court proceedings so that they can be permanently placed in a safe, nuturing enviroment as quickly as possible.

Crime & Legal
3
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Milam County
—
4
Casa of Tipton County

Child Advocacy Services

Crime & Legal
5
Court Appointed Special Advocate of Humboldt

To provide all abused and neglected children with a voice in the court process.

Civil Rights
6
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Camden County Inc

Advocate in the judicial system for the best interest of victims of abuse and neglect in foster care, giving the child a voice in court and moving the child to a safe and permanent home.

—
7
Court Appointed Special Advocates Casa of Liberty/Chambers Counties

None

Human Services
8
Missouri Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

Missouri court appointed special advocate association advocates for the best interest of abused and neglected children by promoting and supporting the development, growth and continuation of quality court appointed special advocate…

Civil Rights
9
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Cook County

CASA of Cook County's vision is to protect abused and neglected children by providing them in court, a safe and permanent home, and an opportunity to grow, learn and thrive.

Crime & Legal
10
Casa - New Orleans

Casa - new orleans trains volunteers to become court appointed special advocates for abused and neglected children in the juvenile justice system.

—
11
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Jefferson County

Casa is an organization that provides one-to-one court advocacy to abused, neglected, or abdandoned children who are dependents of the juvenile court. casa recruits, trains, and superises adult volunteers.

Civil Rights
12
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Bastrop Count

The organization recruits, trains, and supervises volunteers who provide advocacy services to child victims removed by the state from homes because of abuse or neglect

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Casa of Mideast Missouri; the most unlike its peers is Douglass Community Services 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

13 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. 13 of the 25 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
11/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CASA OF SOUTH CENTRAL MO: $199,435 · OtherCASA OF SOUTH CENTRAL MOCASA OF JEFFERSON COUNTY: $186,309 · OtherCASA OF JEFFERSON COUNTYVOICES FOR CHILDRENCASA: $128,774 · OtherVOICES FOR CHILDRENCASAIndividual grant recipient: $102,868 · OtherIndividual grant recipientCASA OF THE 36TH JUDICIAL COURT: $101,708 · OtherCASA OF THE 36TH JUDICIAL COURTIndividual grant recipient: $101,275 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $90,408 · OtherIndividual grant recipient14TH CIRCUIT CASA: $89,851 · Other14TH CIRCUIT CASACASA OF THE 34TH CIRCUIT: $89,356 · OtherCASA OF THE 34TH CIRCUIT11TH CIRCUIT CASA: $81,942 · Other11TH CIRCUIT CASACASA OF MIDEAST MO: $73,991 · OtherCASA OF MIDEAST MOIndividual grant recipient: $43,884 · OtherCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF SOUTHWEST MISSOURI: $299,606 · Civil RightsCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOC…JACKSON COUNTY CASA: $236,382 · Civil RightsJACKSON COUNTY CASACASA OF ST LOUIS: $204,042 · Civil RightsCASA OF ST LOUISNEW-MAC CASA: $99,953 · Civil RightsNEW-MAC CASAHEART OF MISSOURI CASA: $238,038 · Crime & LegalHEART OF MISSOURI CASAJASPER COUNTY CASA: $158,052 · Crime & LegalJASPER COUNTY CASACAPITAL CITY CASA: $130,592 · Crime & LegalCAPITAL CITY CASA37TH JUDICIAL COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES: $95,769 · Crime & Legal37TH JUDICIAL COURT APPO…CASA OF DUNKLIN COUNTY INC: $78,472 · Crime & LegalCASA OF DUNKLIN COUNTY I…CASA OF MIDEAST MISSOURI: $152,298 · Human ServicesCASA OF MIDEAST…COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF THE PARKLAND: $105,179 · Human ServicesCOURT APPOINTED…THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $97,594 · Human ServicesTHE 15TH JUDICI…DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $93,092 · Human ServicesDOUGLASS COMMUN…
Other$1,289,801Civil Rights$839,983Crime & Legal$700,923Human Services$448,163

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF SOUTHWEST MISSOURI: $299,606 over 7y, 7.5% of budgetHEART OF MISSOURI CASA: $238,038 over 7y, 5.9% of budgetJACKSON COUNTY CASA: $236,382 over 7y, 1.9% of budgetCASA OF ST LOUIS: $204,042 over 7y, 3.1% of budgetJASPER COUNTY CASA: $158,052 over 7y, 14% of budgetCASA OF MIDEAST MISSOURI: $152,298 over 6y, 13% of budgetCAPITAL CITY CASA: $130,592 over 7y, 4.5% of budgetCOURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF THE PARKLAND: $105,179 over 6y, 33% of budgetNEW-MAC CASA: $99,953 over 7y, 15% of budgetTHE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA: $97,594 over 7y, 18% of budget37TH JUDICIAL COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES: $95,769 over 7y, 17% of budgetDOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $93,092 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetCASA OF DUNKLIN COUNTY INC: $78,472 over 6y, 16% 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.

  • Who funds COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF SOUTHWEST MISSOURI ↗
  • Who funds HEART OF MISSOURI CASA ↗
  • Who funds JACKSON COUNTY CASA ↗
  • Who funds CASA OF ST LOUIS ↗
  • Who funds JASPER COUNTY CASA ↗
  • Who funds CASA OF MIDEAST MISSOURI ↗
  • Who funds CAPITAL CITY CASA ↗
  • Who funds COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF THE PARKLAND ↗
  • Who funds NEW-MAC CASA ↗
  • Who funds THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASA ↗
  • Who funds 37TH JUDICIAL COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES ↗
  • Who funds DOUGLASS COMMUNITY SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds CASA OF DUNKLIN COUNTY INC ↗

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.

National Court Appoin…Missouri Children's T…Edward Jones Foundati…Charities Aid Foundat…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Court Appointed Special Advocate AssociationWA19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association · Missouri Children's Trust Fund · Edward Jones Foundation · Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 Missouri Court Appointed Special Advocate Association funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Missouri Court Appointed Special Advocate Association. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    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 25 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Missouri Court Appointed Special Advocate Association’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