Skip to content

· Public charity

Aurora Health Care Inc Group Return

To promote health, prevent illness, provide state-of-the art diagnosis and treatment.

$5k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$125k
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, FY2023 to 2024.

Health$177kPhilanthropy$20kCommunity Improvement$13kHuman Services$8kArts & Culture$6kRecreation & Sports$6k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k6 grants · $41k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $125k
$7,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$8.0B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHILDRENS WISCONSIN FOUNDATION$125,000
UNITED WAY OF NORTHERN OZAUKEE$10,000
LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC$9,500
CELEBRATE GRAFTON$7,500
WAUKESHA FREE CLINIC AT CARROLL UNIVERSITY$6,680
CITY OF MANITOWOC$6,000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - PARKSIDE$6,000
PROGRESS LAKESHORE$5,750
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 (FY23–23, $8k) land where the poverty rate runs at 6%, against an area that typically sits at 5%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 5%LAKESHORE REGIONAL CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER: $8k → 6%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.

23%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$54k · 3 repeat orgs$176k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
2

Total granted

$54k
$26k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+10%
+53%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $150k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
HealthArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementHuman 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

  • UNITED WAY OF NORTHERN OZAUKEE INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $20k · revenue +4%
  • LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $20k · revenue +39%
  • WF
    WAUKESHA FREE CLINIC INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $14k · revenue +10%

Funded once

  • NH
    NEW HOPE PREGNANCY CENTER OF SHEBOYGAN INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $18k · revenue +53%
  • LR
    LAKESHORE REGIONAL CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue +40%
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 Free & Charitab

The mission of the wisconsin association of free and charitable clinics is to support, strengthen and advocate for wisconsin's free and charitable clinics and their unique approach to serving their patients and their communities.

Health
2
Waukesha County Community Dental Clinic Inc

Community smiles dental improves the lives of the underserved through oral healthcare services, preventive education, and advocating for systemic healthcare change, because everyone deserves a healthy smile.

Health
3
Kenosha Community Health Center Inc

Kenosha community health center, inc.'s purpose is to provide primary care and referral health services to disadvantaged and underserved populations and promote and ensure that basic primary health services are accessible to uninsured and…

Health
4
Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce

To be a voice for business and a forum for the exchange of ideas and through a variety of chamber programs and services, strengthen the economic vitality of east chicago, hammond, and northwest indiana.

Community Improvement
5
Lake Superior Community Health Center

To improve access to quality health care for all.

Health
6
Healthy Wisconsin Alliance Inc

Healthy wisconsin alliance, inc. was created to promote the social welfare of the citizens of wisconsin including developing, defining, and encouraging distribution of information about wisconsin's health care climate and the importance of…

—
7
The Lakes Community Health Center Inc

To respond to the healthcare needs of our communities with an integrated array of quality services and actively remove barriers to wellness. the lakes community health center, inc. is proud to be a community health center (chc) working to…

—
8
Our Lady of Hope Clinic Inc

Our lady of hope clinic is a direct primary care clinic that gives at least 55% of its services to the uninsured at no cost, consistent with the catholic health care tradition.

Health
9
Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing & Productivity

The wcmp will grow and nurture the mep's impact in the state of wisconsin by engaging and aligning the best possible resources to help small and medium-sized manufacturers reach their potential.

Education
10
Waukesha County Center for Growth Inc

To serve as the central point of contact for businesses looking to grow in waukesha county.

Community Improvement
11
ThedaCare Medical Center - Waupaca Inc

To provide the highest quality health care, delivered in the most efficient and cost-effective ways, and accessible to all members of the community.

Health
12
Health Care Network Inc

Mission is to provide free/low cost health care to residents of racine county who have no health insurance and are of limited income. all health care is provided by volunteers.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Waukesha Free Clinic Inc; the most unlike its peers is Celebrate Grafton 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

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 10 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
5/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION INC: $125,000 · HealthCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION INCLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $19,500 · HealthLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INCNEW HOPE PREGNANCY CENTER OF SHEBOYGAN INC: $18,000 · HealthNEW HOPE PREGNANCY CENTER OF SHEBOYGAN INCUNITED WAY OF NORTHERN OZAUKEE INC: $20,000 · OtherUNITED WAY OF NORTH…WAUKESHA FREE CLINIC INC: $14,180 · OtherWAUKESHA FREE CLINI…University of Wisconsin Madison: $6,000 · OtherUniversity of Wisco…CELEBRATE GRAFTON INC: $7,500 · Arts & CultureWISCONSIN MARITIME MUSEUM INC: $6,000 · Arts & CultureLAKESHORE REGIONAL CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $7,500 · Human ServicesPROGRESS LAKESHORE FOUNDATION INC: $5,750 · Community Improvement
Health$162,500Other$40,180Arts & Culture$13,500Human Services$7,500Community Improvement$5,750

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION INC: $125,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF NORTHERN OZAUKEE INC: $20,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $19,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetNEW HOPE PREGNANCY CENTER OF SHEBOYGAN INC: $18,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetWAUKESHA FREE CLINIC INC: $14,180 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetLAKESHORE REGIONAL CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCELEBRATE GRAFTON INC: $7,500 over 1y, 20% of budgetWISCONSIN MARITIME MUSEUM INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetPROGRESS LAKESHORE FOUNDATION INC: $5,750 over 1y, 18% 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.

Herbert H Kohl Charities IncWI13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Greater Milwaukee 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 Aurora Health Care Inc Group Return funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Aurora Health Care Inc Group Return. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%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
    5report 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 10 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 Aurora Health Care Inc Group Return’s filings →

    More from the funding graph