Skip to content
No Missing Links Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

No Missing Links Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
2
States reached
$500k
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, FY2023 to 2024.

Philanthropy$1.3MEducation$630kHealth$300kInternational$130kReligion$100k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k8 grants · $500k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$50,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$27M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LDS PHILANTHROPIES$500,000
THE BOWYER BATTLE$100,000
MARICOPA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOUNDATION$100,000
B STRONG FOUNDATION$50,000
FRIENDS FOR LIFE$50,000
DIGNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION$50,000
GATHERING HUMANITY$50,000
CARE FOR LIFE$50,000
SHARING DOWN SYNDROME ARIZONA$50,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 51% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%DIGNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%LDS PHILANTHROPIES: $700k → 8%DIGNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%LDS PHILANTHROPIES: $500k → 8%GATHERING HUMANITY: $50k → 11%B STRONG FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%B STRONG FOUNDATION: $50k → 11%GATHERING HUMANITY: $30k → 11%FRIENDS FOR LIFE: $50k → 11%FRIENDS FOR LIFE: $50k → 11%MARICOPA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOUNDATION: $100k → 11%MARICOPA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOUNDATION: $100k → 11%CARE FOR LIFE: $50k → 11%SHARING DOWN SYNDROME ARIZONA: $50k → 11%SHARING DOWN SYNDROME ARIZONA: $50k → 11%THE BOWYER BATTLE: $100k → 11%CARE FOR LIFE: $50k → 11%THE BOWYER BATTLE: $80k → 11%LIAHONA GIVE BACK: $250k → 11%FAMILY WATCH INTERNATIONAL: $30k → 11%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.2M · 9 repeat orgs$280k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue 0% since the first grant, against -70% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
2

Total granted

$2.2M
$280k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
-70%

Still filing today

78%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
PhilanthropyHealthEducationOther
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

  • MC
    MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $200k · revenue +159%
  • CF
    Care for Life Inc
    2× · 2023–2024 · $100k · revenue +4%
  • GH
    GATHERING HUMANITY INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $80k · revenue +35%

Funded once

  • LG
    LIAHONA GIVE BACK
    one grant, 2023 · $250k · revenue -70% · 55% of their budget
  • FW
    FAMILY WATCH INTERNATIONAL
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
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
Filotimo Foundation
Philanthropy
2
Bluestone Giving Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Cystic Fibrosis Scholarship Foundation Inc

provide college scholarships to young adults with cystic fibrosis

Education
4
Makiah's Hope Foundation
Philanthropy
5
Living Hope Foundation
Religion
6
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Therapeutics Inc

The mission is to cure cystic fibrosis and to provide all people with cf the opportunity to lead long, fulfilling lives.

Science & Tech
7
BKStrong Foundation

To assist cancer patients with their daily living expenses

Health
8
Chasing Hope Foundation Christine Walker
Human Services
9
Andrea Zapata Foundation Andrea Zapata Foundation Inc

Encourage and develop projects and activities that will create awareness to the community and other countries as well

—
10
Phoenix Rising Hope Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Moving Hope Foundation
Philanthropy
12
The Courageous Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Maricopa County Community College District Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Gathering Humanity 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

8 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. 8 of the 11 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
3/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LDS PHILANTHROPIES: $1,200,000 · OtherLDS PHILANTHROPIESFRIENDS FOR LIFE: $100,000 · OtherFRIENDS FOR LIFE+1 more: $30,000 · OtherMARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $200,000 · PhilanthropyMARICOPA COUNTY C…Care for Life Inc: $100,000 · PhilanthropyCare for Life IncGATHERING HUMANITY INC: $80,000 · PhilanthropyGATHERING HUMANIT…THE BOWYER BATTLE: $180,000 · HealthTHE BOWYER BATTLESHARING DOWN SYNDROME ARIZONA INC: $100,000 · HealthSHARING DOWN SYND…DIGNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION: $100,000 · HealthDIGNITY HEALTH FO…LIAHONA GIVE BACK: $250,000 · EducationLIAHONA GIVE BAC…B STRONG FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 · EducationB STRONG FOUNDAT…
Other$1,330,000Philanthropy$380,000Health$380,000Education$350,000

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 budgetLIAHONA GIVE BACK: $250,000 over 1y, 55% of budgetMARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION: $200,000 over 2y, 1.5% of budgetTHE BOWYER BATTLE: $180,000 over 2y, 77% of budgetSHARING DOWN SYNDROME ARIZONA INC: $100,000 over 2y, 26% of budgetCare for Life Inc: $100,000 over 2y, 8.8% of budgetB STRONG FOUNDATION INC: $100,000 over 2y, 94% of budgetDIGNITY HEALTH FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 2y, 8.4% of budgetGATHERING HUMANITY INC: $80,000 over 2y, 7.8% 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.

American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation 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 No Missing Links Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from No Missing Links Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’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
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    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 No Missing Links Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to No Missing Links Foundation 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 11 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-PF 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 No Missing Links’ 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