· Public charity
Missouri Win
MISSOURI WIN promotes social welfare by educating the public on policy issues, conducting related research, advocating for public policy reform, and conducting such other activities as allowed by law.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $109k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $226k
- $250k+5 grants · $4.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE | $1,500,000 |
| MISSOURI VOTER PROJECT PAC | $1,250,000 |
| ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION | $1,000,025 |
| MOVE ACTION (C4) | $550,000 |
| PROGRESS MISSOURI | $334,500 |
| LEADMO | $128,000 |
| ACTION ST LOUIS | $98,000 |
| ABORTION ACTION MISSOURI | $40,000 |
| MISSOURI WORKERS POWER | $25,000 |
| CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION | $21,858 |
| ASIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF MISSOURI | $12,000 |
| MULCH ACTION | $10,000 |
| ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA | $7,500 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 54% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +214% since the first grant, against +140% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 3 since wound down; 11 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, 14% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.3M 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
- MOMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT ACTION2× · 2020–2024 · $561k · revenue +163%
- LALEADMO ACTION5× · 2020–2024 · $453k · revenue +214% · 92% of their budget
- MWMISSOURI WIN2× · 2020–2022 · $110k · revenue +548%
Funded once
- PMPROTECT MISSOURI FREEDOMone grant, 2020 · $125k
- CACLEAN AND ACCOUNTABLE PACone grant, 2020 · $110k
- CMCLEAN MISSOURIone grant, 2020 · $76k
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.
Missouri Workers Center is building a multiracial worker-led movement to advance the rights and power of workers on and off the job in rural, urban, and suburban Missouri.
Promotion, support, and coordination of activities to improve the legal system in Missouri through education, research and legislative reforms.
We have advocated for the second amendment rights of all law abiding citizens of missouri.
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…
Assist in furthering policies of the national labor association, monitoring employment legislation, and providing related education to the organization membership.
Action st. louis power project seeks to build political power for black communities in the st. louis region by leading transformative campaigns to mitigate harm against our communities while fighting for long-term transformation.
To promote and further advance the development of the state of missouri.
The missouri alliance for animal legislation is a non-profit organization lobbying full time to bring positive change for animals through the legislative process. our efforts are combined with the actions of concerned individuals, other…
The Missouri Corn Growers Association is a grassroots organization directed by its members dedicated to increasing the profitability of corn production by developing and expanding corn markets; collecting and distributing information;…
To empower voters, foster alignment among civic and elected leaders, and advance solutions that reflect the collective priorities of the st. louis region.
To improve the lives of those in need through quality legal assistance.
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 Ivy Alliance Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 23 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 JOBS WITH JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT ACTION ↗
- Who funds LEADMO ACTION ↗
- Who funds PROGRESS MO ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI WIN ↗
- Who funds ACTION ST LOUIS ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION ↗
- Who funds Abortion Action Missouri ↗
- Who funds Missouri Workers Power ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION ↗
- Who funds Ivy Alliance Foundation ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds Missouri Rural Action ↗
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 Organizing and Voter Engagement Action · Health Forward Foundation · Tides Foundation · Joseph & Florence Roblee Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
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 Win 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 Win?
Find your warmest path to Missouri Win 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.