· Public charity
Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Collaborative
To educate and inform missouri residents on the mechanics of and issues existing in state politics.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k2 grants · $39k
- $50k–250k8 grants · $856k
- $250k+2 grants · $1.3M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MISSOURI WINS INVESTOR NETWORK | $1,017,108 |
| MISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAG | $317,480 |
| MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER AC | $215,000 |
| LIUNA LOCAL 955 | $152,000 |
| EMPOWER MISSOURI | $132,000 |
| PRIVACY RIGHTS EDUCATION PROJECT | $100,000 |
| ABORTION ACTION MISSOURI | $87,500 |
| PROGRESS MO EDUCATION FUND | $69,000 |
| SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| KC TENANTS | $50,000 |
| ACTION ST LOUIS | $28,750 |
| ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
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 (FY24–24, $132k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 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.
14 repeat relationships — 6 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
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, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $678k 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
- MWMISSOURI WIN2× · 2022–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +415%
- MJMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION3× · 2020–2024 · $668k · revenue +3% · 36% of their budget
- MJMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE5× · 2018–2022 · $621k · revenue +561%
Funded once
- BBLAQOUTgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue ×30
- MOMETRO ORGANIZATION FOR RACIAL ECONOMIC EQUITY INCone grant, 2020 · $11k · revenue +20%
- SCSIERRA CLUB- MO CHAPTERone grant, 2020 · $10k
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.
Our mission is to advocate for a just and equitable economy where poor and working people make more of the decisions that affect their daily lives. Through civic engagement, political advocacy, and issue-based voter education and…
Promotion, support, and coordination of activities to improve the legal system in Missouri through education, research and legislative reforms.
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…
To improve the lives of those in need through quality legal assistance.
Assist in furthering policies of the national labor association, monitoring employment legislation, and providing related education to the organization membership.
We have advocated for the second amendment rights of all law abiding citizens of missouri.
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…
Progress mo is a multi-issue advocacy organization focused on advancing progressive issues through communication. our mission is to provide a strong, credible voice in advancing progressive solutions to critical community problems.
The Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis (CBN) is a coalition of community building organizations, including both place-based nonprofits and supporting partners. Our mission is to gather community leaders of all backgrounds to…
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.
A long-term, strategic alliance of labor, community, faith-based, and student organizations working together to build greater economic power for workers and community members through employee rights at work and access to good jobs,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Missouri Jobs With Justice Voter Action and the most unlike its peers is Missouri Faith Voices Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
22 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. 22 of the 24 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 MISSOURI WIN ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LABORER'S LO ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT ACTION ↗
- Who funds Abortion Action Missouri ↗
- Who funds Missouri Rural Crisis Center ↗
- Who funds ARCHCITY DEFENDERS ↗
- Who funds KC TENANTS ↗
- Who funds EMPOWER MISSOURI ↗
- Who funds Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri ↗
- Who funds Missouri Health Care for All ↗
- Who funds PRIVACY RIGHTS EDUCATION PROJECT ↗
- Who funds Missouri Faith Voices Inc ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS MO EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ORGANIZATION FOR BLACK STRUGGLE ↗
- Who funds WEPOWER ↗
- Who funds BLAQOUT ↗
- Who funds METRO ORGANIZATION FOR RACIAL ECONOMIC EQUITY INC ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds Missouri Workers Center ↗
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: St Louis Community Foundation Inc · Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action · Health Forward Foundation · The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta Inc · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · New Venture Fund · Joseph & Florence Roblee Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Trio Foundation of St Louis · Windward Fund · Tides Foundation · Greater Kansas City Community 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 Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Collaborative 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 Organizing and Voter Engagement Collaborative?
Find your warmest path to Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Collaborative 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.