Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

ANTONIA FOUNDATION INCco F MICHAEL ARNOW

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$676k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$175k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Environment$1.6MAnimals$1.2MFood & Nutrition$200kArts & Culture$165kHealth$125kHuman Services$90kEducation$60kRecreation & Sports$5k
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $176k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $500k
$46,333
Median grant
1
States reached
$10.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER$175,000
MILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM$110,000
MEQUON NATURE PRESERVE$85,000
INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION$80,000
HUNGER TASK FORCE$50,000
ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILW$49,290
VIVENT HEALTH$46,333
WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY$25,000
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE$15,000
THE ALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER$10,000
RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER$10,000
BOERNER BOTANICAL GARDENS$10,000
HOO'S WOODS RAPTOR CENTER$10,000
02The need
03

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY20–25, $110k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%THE GATHERING OF SE WI: $20k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $15k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $15k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $15k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $15k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $15k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $15k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge
repeat funding

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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$3.4M · 19 repeat orgs$90k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +24% since the first grant, against -3% for the ones you funded once.

19 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
7

Total granted

$3.4M
$90k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+24%
-3%

Still filing today

84%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsArts & CultureHuman ServicesHealthRecreation & SportsOther

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

  • URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $710k · revenue +113%
  • INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $571k · revenue +2%
  • WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $170k · revenue +61%

Funded once

  • FA
    FEEDING AMERICAN EASTERN WI
    one grant, 2023 · $30k
  • GATHERING OF SOUTHEAST WI INC
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +22%
  • AA
    ARTS AT LARGE INC
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue -27%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

1
Milwaukee Audubon Society Inc

Protect and restore Wisconsin's natural heritage and ecology through active leadership, education and stewardship

Environment
2
Natural Resources Foundation of

To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.

3
Milwaukee Riverkeeper Inc

Our mission is to protect water quality and wildlife habitat in the river corridors and to advocate for sound land use in the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds.

Environment
4
Lincoln Park Zoological Society

Lincoln park zoo is dedicated to connecting people with nature by providing a free, family-oriented wildlife experience in the heart of chicago and by advancing the highest quality of animal care, horticulture, education, science and…

Animals
5
Milwaukee Parks Foundation Inc

Engage our community in supporting milwaukee county parks to collectively steward a thriving park system.

Environment
6
Wisconsin Museum of Nature and Culture

WMNC will continue constructing the new Milwaukee Public Museum facility to completion and will then continue as the owner and operator of the new museum.

Arts & Culture
7
Zoological Society of Milwaukee Endowment Trust

To provide support & funding for the mission of the zoological society of milwaukee & the milwaukee county zoo.

Animals
8
Friends of Wisconsin State Parks Inc

To preserve, promote, protect, and enhance wisconsin state parks, forests, trails, and recreation areas.

Recreation & Sports
9
Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc

The mission of mississippi valley conservancy is to conserve native habitats and farmlands in the driftless area for the health and well-being of current and future generations.

Environment
10
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
11
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
12
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Milwaukee Public Museum Inc and the most unlike its peers is Hoos Woods Raptor Center. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 34 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number18%0%<5yr12%0%5–10yr19%10%10–20yr18%45%20–35yr15%25%35–55yr18%20%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value18%0%<5yr12%0%5–10yr19%15%10–20yr18%39%20–35yr15%27%35–55yr18%19%55yr+

The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
0.0%0/21
the rest of the field
10%
1,101/10,593

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.

04the grantee network

21 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 26 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
14/21
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC — $710,000 · EnvironmentURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INCMequon Nature Preserve Inc — $483,000 · EnvironmentMequon Nature Preserve IncRIVER REVITALIZATION FOUNDATION INC — $120,000 · EnvironmentRIVER REVITALIZATION FOUNDATION INCALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC — $86,500 · EnvironmentALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC+3 more — $67,030 · EnvironmentINTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC — $571,000 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INCZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILWAUKEE CTY — $342,365 · AnimalsZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILWAUKEE CTYWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY — $170,000 · AnimalsWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETYFELLOW MORTALS INC — $87,500 · AnimalsFELLOW MORTALS INCHOOS WOODS RAPTOR CENTER — $73,500 · AnimalsHOOS WOODS RAPTOR CENTERHUNGER TASK FORCE INC — $150,000 · OtherHUNGER TASK…BOERNER BOTANICAL GARDENS — $100,000 · OtherBOERNER BOT…FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON — $60,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF …FEEDING AMERICAN EASTERN WI — $30,000 · OtherFEEDING AME…NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION OF WI — $13,680 · Other+1 more — $5,000 · OtherMILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM INC — $140,000 · Arts & CultureARTS AT LARGE INC — $10,000 · Arts & CultureMILWAUKEE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC — $10,000 · Arts & Culture+1 more — $5,000 · Arts & CultureVIVENT HEALTH INC — $124,666 · HealthNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE INC — $90,000 · Human ServicesGATHERING OF SOUTHEAST WI INC — $20,000 · Human ServicesFRIENDS OF LAKESHORE STATE PARK — $5,250 · Recreation & Sports
Environment$1,466,530Animals$1,244,365Other$358,680Arts & Culture$165,000Health$124,666Human Services$110,000Recreation & Sports$5,250

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC — $710,000 over 9y, 3.1% of budgetINTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC — $571,000 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetMequon Nature Preserve Inc — $483,000 over 9y, 8.4% of budgetZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILWAUKEE CTY — $342,365 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY — $170,000 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetHUNGER TASK FORCE INC — $150,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetMILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM INC — $140,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetVIVENT HEALTH INC — $124,666 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetRIVER REVITALIZATION FOUNDATION INC — $120,000 over 8y, 14% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE INC — $90,000 over 6y, 0.6% of budgetFELLOW MORTALS INC — $87,500 over 5y, 4.0% of budgetALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC — $86,500 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetHOOS WOODS RAPTOR CENTER — $73,500 over 9y, 14% of budgetRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC — $45,000 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetGATHERING OF SOUTHEAST WI INC — $20,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetDRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC — $12,030 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetARTS AT LARGE INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetFRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMILWAUKEE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetFRIENDS OF LAKESHORE STATE PARK — $5,250 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetMADISON CHILDREN'S MUSEUM INC — $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
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 URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC
  • Who funds INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC
  • Who funds Mequon Nature Preserve Inc
  • Who funds ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF MILWAUKEE CTY
  • Who funds WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY
  • Who funds HUNGER TASK FORCE INC
  • Who funds MILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM INC
  • Who funds VIVENT HEALTH INC
  • Who funds RIVER REVITALIZATION FOUNDATION INC
  • Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE INC
  • Who funds FELLOW MORTALS INC
  • Who funds ALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC
  • Who funds HOOS WOODS RAPTOR CENTER
  • Who funds RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC
  • Who funds GATHERING OF SOUTHEAST WI INC
  • Who funds DRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC
  • Who funds ARTS AT LARGE INC
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC
  • Who funds MILWAUKEE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY INC
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF LAKESHORE STATE PARK
  • Who funds MADISON CHILDREN'S MUSEUM INC

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.

Herbert H Kohl Charities IncWI27.8× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Dorothy Inbusch Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · John C Bock Foundation · James E Dutton Foundation Inc · The Brookby Foundation · Ralph Evinrude Foundation Inc · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Dudley and Constance Godfrey Foundation Inc

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 ANTONIA FOUNDATION INCco F MICHAEL ARNOW 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.

2024
202122232425
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%your 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
    8report 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, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to ANTONIA FOUNDATION INCco F MICHAEL ARNOW?

    Find your warmest path to ANTONIA FOUNDATION INCco F MICHAEL ARNOW 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 26 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph