Skip to content
Missouri Win at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· 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.

$5.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$1.5M
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, FY2020 to 2024.

Public Benefit$2.9MCivil Rights$1.5MEmployment$1.5MCommunity Improvement$200kEnvironment$184kEducation$8k
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $109k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $226k
  • $250k+5 grants · $4.6M
$98,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY20–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 54% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 11%CENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $22k → 14%MISSOURI AFL-CIO BUILDING COROPORATION: $10k → 10%PROTECT MISSOURI FREEDOM: $125k → 11%MOVE ACTION: $11k → 15%MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $1.5M → 21%PROGRESS MISSOURI: $350k → 10%MOVE ACTION (C4): $550k → 11%MOVE COLLABORATIVE: $7k → 15%MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $56k → 21%PROGRESS MISSOURI: $75k → 10%PROGRESS MISSOURI: $335k → 11%CLEAN MISSOURI: $76k → 15%MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $10k → 21%PROGRESS MISSOURI: $50k → 10%MULCH ACTION: $10k → 11%ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION: $1.0M → 21%ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA: $8k → 11%CLEAN AND ACCOUNTABLE PAC: $110k → 21%MISSOURI VOTER PROJECT PAC: $1.3M → 11%MISSOURI RURAL ACTION: $5k → 21%RAMP CO MOWIN: $75k → 11%LEADMO: $128k → 21%RAMP CO MOWIN: $35k → 11%LEADMO ACTION: $125k → 21%ASIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY SERVICES OF MISSOURI: $12k → 11%LEADMO ACTION: $75k → 21%LEADMO ACTION: $75k → 21%LEADMO ACTION: $50k → 21%ABORTION ACTION MISSOURI: $40k → 21%ACTION ST LOUIS: $98k → 21%PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES: $11k → 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.

26%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.7M · 5 repeat orgs$4.6M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +214% since the first grant, against +140% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
7

Total granted

$1.7M
$344k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+214%
+140%

Still filing today

80%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 14% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.3M 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
Civil RightsEmploymentCrime & LegalEducationCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • MO
    MISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT ACTION
    2× · 2020–2024 · $561k · revenue +163%
  • LA
    LEADMO ACTION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $453k · revenue +214% · 92% of their budget
  • MW
    MISSOURI WIN
    2× · 2020–2022 · $110k · revenue +548%

Funded once

  • PM
    PROTECT MISSOURI FREEDOM
    one grant, 2020 · $125k
  • CA
    CLEAN AND ACCOUNTABLE PAC
    one grant, 2020 · $110k
  • CM
    CLEAN MISSOURI
    one grant, 2020 · $76k
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 Workers Center

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.

Employment
2
Missouri Centers for Independent Living
—
3
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
4
Missouri Gun Rights

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

Civil Rights
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
Missouri Afl-Cio

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

—
7
Action St Louis Power Project

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.

—
8
Moving Missouri Forward Inc

To promote and further advance the development of the state of missouri.

—
9
Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation

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…

—
10
Missouri Corn Growers Association

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;…

—
11
Civic Impact Coalition

To empower voters, foster alignment among civic and elected leaders, and advance solutions that reflect the collective priorities of the st. louis region.

Education
12
Legal Aid of Western Missouri

To improve the lives of those in need through quality legal assistance.

Crime & Legal
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 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.
04the grantee network

14 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. 14 of the 23 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.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/14
Grantees still filing
7/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MISSOURI VOTER PROJECT PAC: $1,250,000 · OtherMISSOURI VOTER PROJECT PACAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION: $1,000,025 · OtherAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATIONPROGRESS MISSOURI: $475,000 · OtherPROGRESS MISSOURIPROTECT MISSOURI FREEDOM: $125,000 · OtherCLEAN AND ACCOUNTABLE PAC: $109,500 · Other+8 more: $189,400 · Other+8 moreMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $1,500,000 · EmploymentMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICEMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT ACTION: $560,515 · Civil RightsMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND V…LEADMO ACTION: $453,000 · Civil RightsLEADMO ACTIONPROGRESS MO: $334,500 · Civil RightsPROGRESS MOMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $66,000 · Civil Rights+2 more: $29,334 · Civil RightsMISSOURI WIN: $110,000 · Community ImprovementACTION ST LOUIS: $98,000 · Crime & LegalIvy Alliance Foundation: $7,500 · Education
Other$3,148,925Employment$1,500,000Civil Rights$1,443,349Community Improvement$110,000Crime & Legal$98,000Education$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE: $1,500,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION: $1,000,025 over 1y, 34% of budgetMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT ACTION: $560,515 over 2y, 20% of budgetLEADMO ACTION: $453,000 over 5y, 92% of budgetPROGRESS MO: $334,500 over 1y, 88% of budgetMISSOURI WIN: $110,000 over 2y, 7.8% of budgetACTION ST LOUIS: $98,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetMISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE VOTER ACTION: $66,000 over 2y, 8.4% of budgetAbortion Action Missouri: $40,000 over 1y, 5.0% of budgetMissouri Workers Power: $25,000 over 1y, 11% of budgetCENTER FOR VOTER INFORMATION: $21,858 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetIvy Alliance Foundation: $7,500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetMISSOURI ORGANIZING AND VOTER ENGAGEMENT COLLABORATIVE: $7,476 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMissouri Rural Action: $5,000 over 1y, 14% 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…Health Forward Founda…Tides FoundationJoseph & Florence Rob…Fidelity Investments …
Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement ActionMO22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Action · Health Forward Foundation · Tides Foundation · Joseph & Florence Roblee Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Win funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Missouri Win. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
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, FY20–24
    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 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.

    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 23 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 Win’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