Skip to content
St Lukes Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

St Lukes Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals

We are dedicated to providing exceptional care to every patient, every time.

$78k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Health$123kCommunity Improvement$93kYouth Development$34kHuman Services$18kRecreation & Sports$15kPhilanthropy$7k
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $13,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $77,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $64,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$7,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$883M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ALZHEIMERS ASSOCIATION$7,500
CHESTERFIELD REGIONAL CHAMBER$6,000
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 (FY20–22, $23k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%FAMILYFORWARD: $8k → 11%FAMILYFORWARD: $8k → 11%FAMILYFORWARD: $8k → 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.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$231k · 6 repeat orgs$60k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$231k
$52k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+19%
+39%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $8k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’25
HealthPhilanthropyHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • SC
    ST CHARLES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    2× · 2017–2018 · $70k · revenue +14%
  • CD
    CASA DE SALUD
    3× · 2018–2020 · $45k · revenue +34%
  • GS
    GIRL SCOUTS OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $34k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • CH
    CHESTERFIELD HOCKEY ASSOCIATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $15k · revenue +105%
  • SG
    SUSAN G KOMEN MISSOURI
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
  • PR
    PINK RIBBON GOOD INC
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue +16%
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 Center for Patient Safety

Center for patient safety seeks to reduce preventable patient harm by improving patient safety culture, working in collaboration with providers, associations and government entities.

Health
2
St Louis Community Foundation

To promote the possibilities of charitable giving, helping charitable citizens understand how they can effectively provide for the community they love and the causes they care deeply about.

Philanthropy
3
The Small Business Synergy Corporation

Development of small businesses to stimulate economic growth and create jobs and wealth in st. charles county missouri

Employment
4
St Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association

Greater st. louis, inc. brings together business and civic leaders to create jobs, drive inclusive economic growth, and increase the st. louis metro area's global competitiveness. we speak with a unified voice, lead with a bold agenda, and…

—
5
Cape Girardeau Area Chamber of Commerce

The cape girardeau area chamber of commerce is a leading partner of business and industry that supports the growth of a vibrant economy, an enhanced quality of life in southeast missouri, business advocacy, and strategies to grow and…

—
6
Community Foundation of Central Mo

The community foundation of central missouri inspires and nurtures philanthropy for the public good.

Philanthropy
7
Mission St Louis

Mission: st. louis empowers individuals for social and economic growth through relationships and opportunity.

Community Improvement
8
St Charles Chamber of Commerce

We advocate for our business community by developing opportunities and partnerships that strengthen the economic prosperity and sustainability of our region.

—
9
Build Missouri Health

To foster and amplify community-led innovations through partnerships resulting in radical system changes that create equitable health outcomes.

Human Services
10
Missouri Partnership

In its role as the principal business recruitment and marketing organization for missouri, the missouri partnership attracts new jobs and business investments to the state through collaborative efforts with other state and local economic…

Community Improvement
11
St Louis Sports Commission Inc

Foster economic growth and improved quality of life in the st. louis area by producing events, enhancing its national and international image as a premier sports region, and increasing community awareness of the value of sports.

—
12
Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City

Leading the way to the best kc region by convening innovative leaders, collaborating with like-minded organizations, advocating for positive change, and helping small businesses grow.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Home Society of Missouri; the most unlike its peers is Girl Scouts of Eastern Missouri 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

10 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. 10 of the 13 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
7/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST CHARLES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $70,000 · OtherST CHARLES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILMISSOURI STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PHYSICIANS HEALTH FOUNDATION: $35,500 · OtherMISSOURI STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PHYSICIANS HEALTH FOUNDATIONGIRL SCOUTS OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC: $34,375 · OtherGIRL SCOUTS OF EASTERN MISSOURI INCCHESTERFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $23,400 · OtherCHESTERFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCESUSAN G KOMEN MISSOURI: $10,000 · OtherALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION - GREATER MISSOURI CHAPTER: $7,500 · OtherFamily Resource Center: $7,500 · OtherCASA DE SALUD: $45,000 · HealthCASA DE SALUDPINK RIBBON GOOD INC: $7,500 · HealthPINK RIBBON GOOD INCCHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF MISSOURI: $22,500 · Human ServicesCHESTERFIELD HOCKEY ASSOCIATION: $15,000 · Recreation & SportsST ANDREWS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $6,800 · PhilanthropyTHE PUJOLS FAMILY FOUNDATION INC: $5,200 · Philanthropy
Other$188,275Health$52,500Human Services$22,500Recreation & Sports$15,000Philanthropy$12,000

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 budgetST CHARLES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $70,000 over 2y, 2.6% of budgetCASA DE SALUD: $45,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetMISSOURI STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PHYSICIANS HEALTH FOUNDATION: $35,500 over 4y, 2.0% of budgetGIRL SCOUTS OF EASTERN MISSOURI INC: $34,375 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetCHESTERFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $23,400 over 4y, 1.3% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF MISSOURI: $22,500 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCHESTERFIELD HOCKEY ASSOCIATION: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPINK RIBBON GOOD INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetST ANDREWS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION: $6,800 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE PUJOLS FAMILY FOUNDATION INC: $5,200 over 1y, 0.5% 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.

St Louis Community Fo…United Way of Greater…Youthbridge Community…Bjc Health System Gro…Edward Jones Foundati…St Louis Community Fo…World Wide Technology…Washington UniversityCommerce Bancshares F…Enterprise Holdings F…The Blackbaud Giving …Charities Aid Foundat…
St Louis Community Foundation IncMO21.4× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: St Louis Community Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater St Louis Inc · Youthbridge Community Foundation · Bjc Health System Group Return · Edward Jones Foundation · St Louis Community Foundation · World Wide Technology Foundation · Washington University · Commerce Bancshares Foundation · Enterprise Holdings Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America

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 St Lukes Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from St Lukes Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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.

    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 13 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on St Lukes Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals’ 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