Skip to content
Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action

Advocating for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of average missouri citizens, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy, and conducting research, educating the public, and publicizing the positions of elected officials concerning these issues.

$1.8M
Granted FY2024still arriving
12
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$381k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2024.

Public Benefit$1.8MCivil Rights$1.7MEmployment$396kCrime & Legal$101kHousing & Shelter$70kHealth$41kReligion$37kEnvironment$24kOther$0
02FY2024 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $136k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $505k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.1M
$100,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.8M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ACTION ST LOUIS POWER PROJECT$380,666
MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER$377,536
ABORTION ACTION MISSOURI$372,894
MISSOURI WORKER POWER$183,960
MISSOURI WORKERS CENTER$125,757
MISSOURI WIN$100,000
WE POWER ACTION MISSOURI$95,047
PROMO FUND$42,272
MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE$37,000
METROPOLITAN CONGREGATIONS UNITED$37,000
MIDWEST ARTIST PROJECT SERVICES$10,000
BREAD & ROSES MISSOURI$10,000
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 (FY22–24, $86k) land where the poverty rate runs at 18%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER KANSAS CITY: $44k → 15%PROMO FUND: $42k → 21%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.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.1M · 11 repeat orgs$1.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue 0% since the first grant, against -5% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
16

Total granted

$3.1M
$538k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
-5%

Still filing today

82%
69%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 71% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $515k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Civil RightsCrime & LegalEmploymentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementArts & CultureOther
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

  • MJ
    MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +3% · 55% of their budget
  • AA
    Abortion Action Missouri
    4× · 2018–2024 · $529k · revenue +618% · 51% of their budget
  • MW
    Missouri Workers Center
    2× · 2023–2024 · $273k · revenue +178%

Funded once

  • LA
    LEADMO ACTIONgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $80k · revenue +220% · 99% of their budget
  • AS
    ACTION ST LOUIS
    one grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue -28%
  • KT
    KC TENANTS POWER
    one grant, 2022 · $70k
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 Organizing and Voter Engagement Action

Advocating for legislation, regulations, ballot initiatives, and government programs as a voice of average missouri citizens, to promote social justice, and to stimulate the economy, and conducting research, educating the public, and…

Civil Rights
2
Missouri Centers for Independent Living
—
3
Missouri Afl-Cio

Assist in furthering policies of the national labor association, monitoring employment legislation, and providing related education to the organization membership.

—
4
Missouri Health Care for All

Missouri Health Care for All is bringing together a community of passionate activists in our state to advocate for equitable health policies in Missouri, and to advance the broader movement for universal, single-payer health care in the…

—
5
Coalition for Missouri Values

The coalition for missouri values seeks to bring members of our community together around a core set of values that undergird our society and community. together, we aim to gather information, educate and inform our fellow citizens and…

—
6
Jobs With Justice Ballot Fund

Developing and advocating for legislation, regulations ballot initiatives and democratic participation to promote the voice of the working class and promote social justice.

—
7
Missouri Gun Rights

We have advocated for the second amendment rights of all law abiding citizens of missouri.

Civil Rights
8
St Louis Workers Education Society

The St. Louis Workers Education Society (WES) educates and trains St. Louis residents, especially people of color, women and youth, to become community leaders. Our focus is on the intersection of workers rights, racial justice, sexual and…

Human Services
9
Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Collaborative

To educate and inform missouri residents on the mechanics of and issues existing in state politics. among other things, the organization will offer 501(c)3 organizations technical support in educating the general public on policy issues.

Civil Rights
10
Progress St Louis Action Fund

To provide innovative solutions to create lasting, transformative change to ensure that st. louis is a more equitable place to live, work and be happy.

Education
11
Missouri Civil Justice Reform Coalition Inc

Promotion, support, and coordination of activities to improve the legal system in Missouri through education, research and legislative reforms.

Civil Rights
12
Progressive Workers Coalition

To ensure that working class people are educated on their voting rights. The coalition engages in mobilization and educational information sessions to ensure that all workers voices are heard.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Missouri Jobs With Justice Voter Action; the most unlike its peers is Sierra Club. 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

27 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. 27 of the 36 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.

8
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/27
Grantees still filing
9/27
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ACTION ST LOUIS POWER PROJECT: $537,666 · OtherACTION ST LOUIS POWER PROJECTAbortion Action Missouri: $528,796 · OtherAbortion Action MissouriHeartland Action: $185,425 · OtherHeartland ActionMissouri Workers Power: $183,960 · OtherMissouri Workers PowerWE POWER ACTION MISSOURI: $95,047 · OtherMissouri Rural Action: $90,000 · OtherKC TENANTS POWER: $70,450 · Other+13 more: $314,647 · Other+13 moreMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $1,111,957 · Civil RightsMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTIONPROGRESS MO: $190,000 · Civil RightsPROGRESS MOORGANIZATION FOR BLACK STRUGGLE: $108,800 · Civil RightsORGANIZATION FOR BLACK STRUGGLELEADMO ACTION: $79,555 · Civil Rights+3 more: $69,285 · Civil RightsMissouri Workers Center: $273,250 · EmploymentMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $37,000 · EmploymentMISSOURI WIN: $100,000 · Community ImprovementURBAN LEAGUE OF KANSAS CITY MO: $43,802 · Human ServicesPROMO FUND: $42,272 · Human ServicesACTION ST LOUIS: $75,000 · Crime & LegalARCHCITY DEFENDERS: $5,900 · Crime & LegalTIDES FOUNDATION: $13,000 · PhilanthropyBREAD & ROSES MISSOURI: $10,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$2,005,991Civil Rights$1,559,597Employment$310,250Community Improvement$100,000Human Services$86,074Crime & Legal$80,900Philanthropy$13,000Arts & Culture$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $1,111,957 over 5y, 55% of budgetACTION ST LOUIS POWER PROJECT: $537,666 over 3y, 30% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri: $528,796 over 4y, 51% of budgetMissouri Workers Center: $273,250 over 2y, 14% of budgetPROGRESS MO: $190,000 over 2y, 50% of budgetHeartland Action: $185,425 over 2y, 97% of budgetMissouri Workers Power: $183,960 over 1y, 82% of budgetORGANIZATION FOR BLACK STRUGGLE: $108,800 over 3y, 11% of budgetMISSOURI WIN: $100,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetMissouri Rural Action: $90,000 over 2y, 99% of budgetLEADMO ACTION: $79,555 over 1y, 99% of budgetWORKING FAMILIES ORGANIZATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMISSOURIANS FOR HEALTHY FAMILIES AND FAI: $50,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetURBAN LEAGUE OF KANSAS CITY MO: $43,802 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetPROMO FUND: $42,272 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $37,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMissouri Health Care Action: $33,675 over 2y, 15% of budgetPRESERVE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA INC: $25,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetSIERRA CLUB: $24,100 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTIDES FOUNDATION: $13,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMETRO ORGANIZATION FOR RACIAL ECONOMIC EQUITY INC: $12,325 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetCONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LABORER'S LO: $10,640 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetBREAD & ROSES MISSOURI: $10,000 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetCOMMITTEE TO PROTECT MISSOURI FAMILIES: $8,500 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetPlanned Parenthood Great Rivers Action: $6,960 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetARCHCITY DEFENDERS: $5,900 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Missouri Organizing a…Missouri WinSt Louis Community Fo…Health Forward Founda…Joseph & Florence Rob…Gezellig FoundationAll Hands on Deck Net…Tides AdvocacyTides FoundationSixteen Thirty FundAmalgamated Charitabl…The Community Foundat…
Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement CollaborativeMO22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Collaborative · Missouri Win · St Louis Community Foundation Inc · Health Forward Foundation · Joseph & Florence Roblee Foundation · Gezellig Foundation · All Hands on Deck Network Inc · Tides Advocacy · Tides Foundation · Sixteen Thirty Fund · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta Inc

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 Organizing and Voter Engagement Action funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's 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, 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action?

    Find your warmest path to Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action 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.

    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 36 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 Organizing and Voter Engagement Action’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