Skip to content

· Private foundation

Arthur J Donald Family Foundation Inc

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.

$115k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Animals$320kEnvironment$109kCommunity Improvement$52kArts & Culture$50kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $8k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $58k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$20,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$480k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HISTORIC HAYMARKET MILWAUKEE$50,000
LAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY$25,000
INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION$20,000
OZAUKEE WASHINGTON LAND TRUST$12,500
COPPER RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT$7,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 89% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%LAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $25k → 6%OZAUKEE WASHINGTON LAND TRUST: $13k → 6%INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION: $20k → 9%HISTORIC HAYMARKET MILWAUKEE: $50k → 17%COPPER RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT: $8k → 7%SEE STATEMENT: $149k → 17%SEE STATEMENT: $124k → 17%SEE STATEMENT: $122k → 17%SEE STATEMENT: $83k → 17%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.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$474k · 6 repeat orgs$57k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +273% since the first grant, against +236% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$474k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+273%
+236%

Still filing today

83%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 57% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’20’22’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’20’22’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsScience & TechArts & CultureOther
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

  • INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC
    5× · 2017–2025 · $207k · revenue +57%
  • LM
    LAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY
    4× · 2020–2025 · $85k · revenue +273%
  • RL
    RESTORING LANDS INC
    4× · 2017–2025 · $72k · revenue +451%

Funded once

  • Milwaukee Audubon Society Incgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $7k · revenue +236%
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
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
2
Wisconsin Wetlands Association Inc

Wisconsin Wetlands Association is dedicated to the protection, restoration, and enjoyment of wetlands and associated ecosystems through science-based programs, education, and advocacy.

Environment
3
Natural Resource Development Association Inc

The natural resource development association supports policies that lead to proper, necessary, and conscientious resource development and conservation. by engaging community leaders, laborers, manufacturers, and job creators in the…

Environment
4
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
5
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment
6
Waukesha County Land Conservancy Inc

To protect environmentally senstive land in waukesha county wisconsin

Environment
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
Natural Resources Foundation of

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

—
11
Hawk Ridge Bird Observatory Inc

The mission of Hawk Ridge Bird Observatory is to promote conservation of raptors and other birds in the Western Lake Superior Region through research, education, and stewardship.

Animals
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Restoring Lands Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Flame Tree Initiative. 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, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC: $207,100 · AnimalsINTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INCLAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $85,000 · OtherLAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATOR…THE FLAME TREE INITIATIVE: $52,000 · OtherTHE FLAME TREE INITIATIVERESTORING LANDS INC: $71,750 · EnvironmentRESTORING LANDS INCCopper River Watershed Project: $30,250 · EnvironmentCopper River Watershed …Milwaukee Audubon Society Inc: $7,250 · EnvironmentMilwaukee Audubon Socie…Historic Haymarket Milwaukee Inc: $50,000 · Arts & CultureHistoric H…THE WISCONSIN SOCIETY FOR ORNITHOLOGY INC: $27,500 · Science & Tech
Animals$207,100Other$137,000Environment$109,250Arts & Culture$50,000Science & Tech$27,500

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 budgetINTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC: $207,100 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetLAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $85,000 over 4y, 8.3% of budgetRESTORING LANDS INC: $71,750 over 4y, 2.7% of budgetTHE FLAME TREE INITIATIVE: $52,000 over 3y, 33% of budgetHistoric Haymarket Milwaukee Inc: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCopper River Watershed Project: $30,250 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetTHE WISCONSIN SOCIETY FOR ORNITHOLOGY INC: $27,500 over 3y, 7.0% of budgetMilwaukee Audubon Society Inc: $7,250 over 1y, 10% 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.

Natural Resources Foundation OfWI13.6× affinity4 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natural Resources Foundation Of · 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 Arthur J Donald Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Arthur J Donald Family Foundation 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 Arthur J Donald Family Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Arthur J Donald Family Foundation Inc 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 8 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 Arthur J Donald Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph