· Public charity
Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation
VICC is committed to building relationships, promoting diversity and providing school choice while enriching lives through quality educational experiences.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $50k–250k3 grants · $463k
- $250k+10 grants · $14M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Rockwood School District | $4,577,190 |
| Parkway School District | $4,357,941 |
| School District of Clayton | $1,003,829 |
| Mehlville School District | $889,040 |
| Special School District | $857,203 |
| Hancock Place School District | $582,851 |
| Bayless School District | $453,624 |
| Affton School District | $398,417 |
| Brentwood School District | $294,636 |
| Webster Groves School District | $268,831 |
| Valley Park School District | $225,774 |
| Kirkwood School District | $144,170 |
| St Louis Public Schools | $92,601 |
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of your 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.
13 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
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
- RSRockwood School District5× · 2021–2025 · $31M
- PSParkway School District5× · 2021–2025 · $29M
- MSMehlville School District5× · 2021–2025 · $5.7M
Funded once
- WGWebster Groves School Districtone grant, 2022 · $472k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2021–2025.
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 2021–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 14 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.
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: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) · Masonic Home of Missouri
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation?
Find your warmest path to Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation 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.