Skip to content

· Private foundation

A C Kootz Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$7k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2024 to 2025.

Animals$7kPhilanthropy$4kEducation$2kEnvironment$2kHealth$2kArts & Culture$1kHuman Services$500
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$126k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHENEQUA FOUNDATION$1,000
LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC$1,000
WISCONSIN HUMAN SOCIETY$1,000
UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL$1,000
TALL PINES CONSERVANCY$1,000
HUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY HAWS$1,000
ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILWAUKEE$750
OLD WORLD FOUNDATION$500
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 (FY24–24, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 5%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%LAKE COUNTRY CARING: $500 → 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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$14k · 7 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
5

Total granted

$14k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

71%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 86% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
AnimalsEnvironmentHealthEducationArts & CultureHuman 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

  • CHENEQUA FOUNDATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $3k · revenue -2%
  • TP
    TALL PINES CONSERVANCY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $2k · revenue 0%
  • WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $2k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • HUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY OF WAUKESHA COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2024 · $1k · revenue +6%
  • MA
    MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC
    one grant, 2024 · $500 · revenue 0%
  • W
    WAGS
    one grant, 2024 · $500
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
Wisconsin Association of Lakes Inc

The mission of the wisconsin association of lakes is to conserve, enhance, and restore wisconsin's 15,000 lakes to ensure their sustainability for the benefit and collective use and enjoyment for this and future generations.

Environment
2
Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Inc

To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.

Environment
3
Wisconsin Waterfowl Association Inc

The purpose of the association shall be to restore and conserve wisconsin's waterfowl and wetland resources; to educate state waterfowlers during their progression from natural resource consumer to steward; and to promote governmental…

Environment
4
Wisconsin Lutheran Home Ministries Inc

To share christ's love as we serve the spiritual, physical, intellectual and emotional needs of people entrusted to our care and others whose lives we touch.

—
5
Landmark Conservancy Inc

Landmark conservancy is a nationally accredited, nonprofit conservation organization serving 20 counties across northwest wisconsin. their mission is to conserve wisconsin's natural legacy for everyone...forever.

Environment
6
Waukesha County Land Conservancy Inc

To protect environmentally senstive land in waukesha county wisconsin

Environment
7
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Inc

The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.

Environment
8
Fund for Lake Michigan Inc

Lake Michigan is one of Wisconsin's greatest assets, and its water is critical to the state's future. The Fund for Lake Michigan is here to help sustain the Lake on behalf of the people and places that depend on it. Our goal is to have a…

Environment
9
Wisconsin Policy Forum Inc

We conduct impartial public policy research and analysis to drive informed debate and effective decision-making in the state of wisconsin.

Public Benefit
10
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
11
Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum Inc

The museum is an educational institution dedicated to preserving the history and culture of waukesha county.

—
12
Leelanau Conservancy

To conserve the land, water and scenic character of leelanau county, and to provide educational programs to develop an understanding and appreciation of leelanau county's natural heritage.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Humane Animal Welfare Society of Waukesha County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Chenequa Foundation. 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

9 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. 9 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
1/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHENEQUA FOUNDATION: $3,000 · OtherCHENEQUA FOUNDATIONZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILWAUKEE: $1,500 · OtherZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILWAUKEEHUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY HAWS: $1,000 · OtherHUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY HAWSOLD WORLD FOUNDATION: $1,000 · OtherOLD WORLD FOUNDATIONWAGS: $500 · OtherWAGSWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $2,000 · AnimalsWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIE…HUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY OF WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $1,000 · AnimalsHUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE …FELLOW MORTALS INC: $500 · AnimalsFELLOW MORTALS INCTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $2,000 · EnvironmentTALL PINES C…LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $2,000 · HealthLAKE AREA FR…UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC: $2,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY L…MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $500 · Arts & CultureLAKE COUNTRY CARING INC: $500 · Human Services
Other$7,000Animals$3,500Environment$2,000Health$2,000Education$2,000Arts & Culture$500Human Services$500

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 budgetCHENEQUA FOUNDATION: $3,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHUMANE ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY OF WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLAKE COUNTRY CARING INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFELLOW MORTALS INC: $500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Arthur C Kootz FoundationWI20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arthur C Kootz Foundation · Merganser Fund Inc · Windhover Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Jean & Thomas Harbeck Family Foundation · Emil Ewald Family Foundation Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Renaissance Charitable Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 A C Kootz Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from A C Kootz Foundation. 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%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 A C Kootz Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to A C Kootz 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 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-PF 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 A C Kootz’s filings →

    More from the funding graph