Skip to content
2-1-1 Wisconsin Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

2-1-1 Wisconsin Inc

The mission of 2-1-1 wisconsin is to connect everyone in wisconsin with quick and easy access to community-based health and human services information and resources.

$523k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$179k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Health$1.9MPhilanthropy$1.1MEmployment$552kHuman Services$165kReligion$7k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $7k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $114k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $400k
$34,083
Median grant
1
States reached
$768k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
IMPACT ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ABUSE SERVICES INC$179,473
UNITED WAY OF DANE COUNTY$75,550
GUNDERSEN LUTHERAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES INC$75,446
UNITED WAY FOX CITIES INC$69,444
UNITED WAY OF SOUTH WOOD AND ADAMS COUNTIES INC$34,083
UNITED WAY OF MARATHON COUNTY INC$32,261
UNITED WAY OF ST CROIX VALLEY$26,622
BROWN COUNTY UNITED WAY INC$20,821
WISCONSIN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES$7,377
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 (FY20–24, $165k) land where the poverty rate runs at 5%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UNITED WAY OF ST CROIX VALLEY: $49k → 5%UNITED WAY OF ST CROIX VALLEY: $44k → 5%UNITED WAY OF ST CROIX VALLEY: $27k → 5%UNITED WAY OF ST CROIX VALLEY: $25k → 5%UNITED WAY OF ST CROIX VALLEY: $20k → 5%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.8M · 8 repeat orgs$7k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
1

Total granted

$3.8M
$7k

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
PhilanthropyHealthHuman ServicesOther
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

  • IMPACT ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ABUSE SERVICES INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $1.3M · revenue +8%
  • GL
    Gundersen Lutheran Administrative Services Inc
    7× · 2018–2024 · $672k · revenue +49%
  • UW
    UNITED WAY FOX CITIES INC
    7× · 2018–2024 · $507k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • WC
    WISCONSIN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
    one grant, 2024 · $7k
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
United Way Manitowoc County Inc

United way's mission is to improve lives.

Philanthropy
2
United Way of Wisconsin Inc

United way of wisconsin is dedicated to supporting and enriching a strong statewide united way network that maximizes the capacity of local united ways to address human needs, improve lives and create lasting positive change across…

Philanthropy
3
United Way of Langlade County Inc

United Way uses its global reach and local presence to build stronger, more resilient communities where everyone can thrive. We work to improve the health, education, and economic mobility of every person in every community we serve.

Philanthropy
4
United Way of the Midlands

United way connects people and resources to improve the quality of life in the midlands. united way invests in a broad range of community programs that increase access to health care, improve student success, assist people in crisis to…

Philanthropy
5
United Way of Lapeer County

To unite the community by developing resources to meet the community needs.

Philanthropy
6
United Way of North Central Iowa

Seeking to build a stronger, more caring community by forming partnerships with businesses, community experts, education & health & human service agencies to achieve targeted outcomes & sustained changes in community conditions which will…

Philanthropy
7
United Way of Illinois

Strengthen United Way movement in Illinois

Philanthropy
8
Kishwaukee United Way

To improve lives by sharing community resources

Philanthropy
9
United Way of Marquette County

Focusing community resources to meet community needs the United Way of Marquette County works to advance the common good by connecting people with health and human care issues they are concerned about and to provide the oversight the…

—
10
Lakes Area United Way

The mission of crow wing county united way inc. is to improve lives by mobilizing the caring power of our community. it does this each day through the partnerships created throughout the communities it serves. whether it is board members,…

Philanthropy
11
United Way of Whiteside County

Providing dynamic leadership in uniting people and resources to create lasting change that improves lives and strengthens our communities.

Philanthropy
12
Greater Ottawa County United Way

To improve lives by mobilizing the caring power of community to advance the common good. greater ottawa county united way supports, develops, and implements a range of impact solutions that improve lives and creates stronger communities.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is United Way St Croix and Red Cedar Valleys Inc; the most unlike its peers is Gundersen Lutheran Administrative Services 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 9 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

IMPACT ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ABUSE SERVICES INC: $1,277,643 · HealthIMPACT ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ABUSE SERVICES INCGundersen Lutheran Administrative Services Inc: $671,852 · HealthGundersen Lutheran Administrative Services IncUNITED WAY FOX CITIES INC: $507,482 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY FOX CITIES INCUNITED WAY OF MARATHON COUNTY INC: $218,445 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF MARATHON COUNTY INCUNITED WAY OF SOUTH WOOD & ADAMS COUNTIES INC: $216,031 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF SOUTH WOOD & ADAMS …BROWN COUNTY UNITED WAY: $182,252 · PhilanthropyBROWN COUNTY UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF DANE COUNTY INC: $552,075 · OtherUNITED WAY OF DA…+1 more: $7,377 · OtherUNITED WAY ST CROIX AND RED CEDAR VALLEYS INC: $165,014 · Human Services
Health$1,949,495Philanthropy$1,124,210Other$559,452Human Services$165,014

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetIMPACT ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ABUSE SERVICES INC: $1,277,643 over 7y, 4.5% of budgetGundersen Lutheran Administrative Services Inc: $671,852 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF DANE COUNTY INC: $552,075 over 7y, 0.6% of budgetUNITED WAY FOX CITIES INC: $507,482 over 7y, 1.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF MARATHON COUNTY INC: $218,445 over 7y, 1.5% of budgetUNITED WAY OF SOUTH WOOD & ADAMS COUNTIES INC: $216,031 over 7y, 4.8% of budgetBROWN COUNTY UNITED WAY: $182,252 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetUNITED WAY ST CROIX AND RED CEDAR VALLEYS INC: $165,014 over 5y, 4.7% 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.

  • Who funds IMPACT ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG ABUSE SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds Gundersen Lutheran Administrative Services Inc ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF DANE COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY FOX CITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF MARATHON COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF SOUTH WOOD & ADAMS COUNTIES INC ↗
  • Who funds BROWN COUNTY UNITED WAY ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY ST CROIX AND RED CEDAR VALLEYS INC ↗

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.

Abc Foundation Charit…Herbert H Kohl Charit…Green Bay Packers Fou…Baird Foundation IncUnited Way WorldwideCharities Aid Foundat…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Abc Foundation Charitable TrustWI15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Abc Foundation Charitable Trust · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · United Way Worldwide · Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 2-1-1 Wisconsin Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from 2-1-1 Wisconsin Inc. 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 9 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 2-1-1 Wisconsin’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