· Public charity
United Way of Central Missouri Inc
To unite people and resources in the mid-missouri area by leading and coordinating a community effort to care for one another.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k8 grants · $62k
- $10k–50k20 grants · $490k
- $50k–250k12 grants · $1.3M
- $250k+1 grant · $280k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE SALVATION ARMY | $280,000 |
| LITTLE EXPLORERS DISCOVERY CENTER | $185,145 |
| RAPE AND ABUSE CRISIS SERVICE | $173,000 |
| SPECIAL LEARNING CENTER | $166,342 |
| COMPASS HEALTH NETWORK | $145,000 |
| BOYS & GIRLS CLUB | $123,500 |
| AMERICAN RED CROSS | $98,500 |
| BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS | $89,701 |
| JEFFERSON CITY AREA YMCA | $85,000 |
| SENIOR NUTRITION CENTER | $76,161 |
| THE SNEAKER PROJECT | $60,000 |
| CENTRAL MO FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION | $53,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES | $50,000 |
| COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER | $49,000 |
| COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY BUILDING | $48,000 |
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 (FY17–25, $3.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 99% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +46% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.
70 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2025, 32 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k 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
- CCCAPITAL CITY AREA COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL SERVICES9× · 2017–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +404%
- JCJEFFERSON CITY DAY CARE CENTERINC7× · 2017–2023 · $1.2M · revenue +47% · 27% of their budget
- JCJEFFERSON CITY AREA YMCA9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +55%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $135k
- THTRANSFORMATIONAL HOUSINGgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $30k · revenue +61%
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $23k
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.
The program provides organization structure, leadership and training for community volunteers who serve as court appointed special advocates(casa) for agbused and neglected children in south central missouri.
Provide support services to developmentally disabled individuals of perry county,missouri through areas of community employment, job preparation, day programs, transportation and personal assistance.
Assist individuals with developmental disabilities in achieving the goal of living in their community of choice with the necessary support
The Gibson Center for Behavorial Change is committed to providing comprehensive services which promote new behaviors for a healthy lifestyle.
To provide outpatient and residential rehabilitative services to individuals and families referred by various government agencies. these individuals include substance abusers, intellectually disabled, developmentally disabled, and abused…
The carthage crisis center is committed to restoring homeless and needy people to self sufficiency with god's help.
Provide Case Management for people with developmental disabilities such as autism services, respite care, crisis intervention, self directed services, and Medicaid Home and Cummunity Based Waiver programs. A daycare was opened in 2025 to…
Discovery behavioral healthcare is a community based health treatment center dedicated to providing state of the art services to foster recovery and resilience in an accessible, respective and caring environment.
The mental health association is committed to individual service in a community based setting that promotes recovery, dignity, personal growth, self determination and health.
To provide dynamic, culturally-sensitive, high quality behavioral healthcare to residents of chase, coffey, greenwood, lyon, morris, osage and wabaunsee counties in the most effective, caring and efficient manner.
Enhance the opportunities and quality of life for children and youth with disabilities. the organization achieves this objective through parent training, emotional support, direct advocacy, community education, self-advocacy and navigation…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Compass Health Inc and the most unlike its peers is Homemaker Health Care Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 30 years old; the field is 30. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 16% startups (under 5 years old) — 2% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
59 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. 59 of the 90 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 CAPITAL CITY AREA COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL SERVICES ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSON CITY DAY CARE CENTERINC ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSON CITY AREA YMCA ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSON CITY RAPE AND ABUSE CRISIS SERVICE ↗
- Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
- Who funds COMPASS HEALTH INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF JEFFERSON CITY ↗
- Who funds COUNCIL FOR DRUG FREE YOUTH ↗
- Who funds Senior Nutrition Council of Jefferson City and Cole County ↗
- Who funds Community Health Center of Central Missouri ↗
- Who funds THE FOOD BANK FOR CENTRAL & NORTHEAST MISSOURI ↗
- Who funds THE SNEAKER PROJECT ↗
- Who funds HOMEMAKER HEALTH CARE INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL MISSOURI FOSTER CARE & ADOPTION ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds GIRL SCOUTS OF THE MISSOURI HEARTLAND INC ↗
- Who funds BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds DREAMS TO REALITY ↗
- Who funds CAPITAL CITY CASA ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSON CITY AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES ↗
- Who funds TRI COUNTY YMCA OF THE OZARKS ↗
- Who funds CAPITOL PROJECTS INC ↗
- Who funds OSAGE COUNTY COMMUNITY LIVING INC ↗
- Who funds ADULT BASIC LITERACY EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds RIVER CITY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ↗
- Who funds Catholic Charities of Central and Northern Missouri ↗
- Who funds CITIZENS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ↗
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: Veterans United Foundation · Allen P and Josephine B Green · Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc · Orscheln Industries Foundation Inc · Mfa Oil Foundation · St Louis Community Foundation Inc · Heart of Missouri United Way Inc · Healthcare Services Group Charitable Foundation · Stafford Family Charitable Trust · Missouri Children's Trust Fund · Je and le Mabee Foundation Inc · Schell Family 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 United Way of Central Missouri Inc 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.