· Public charity
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc
Boys & girls clubs of greater milwaukee was founded in 1887 by annabell cook withcomb and was named the boys busy life club in 1900.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 1 grants below total $725,543 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,286,977 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $561,434 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| UNITED WAY | $725,543 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY18–21, $541k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
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.
Where the work is directed
The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.
About 100% of Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 99% of the giving stays in WI; read by stated purpose it is 0% — less of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.
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.
29 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 28 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- UWUNITED WAY OF WISCONSIN INC3× · 2022–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +127%
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOX VALLEY INC4× · 2018–2021 · $541k · revenue +575%
- BGBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC4× · 2018–2021 · $524k · revenue +60%
Funded once
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.
To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
The mission of the boys & girls clubs of west central missouri is to inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as caring and productive citizens.
To enable all young people, especially those who need them most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
The boys & girls club's mission is to inspire and enable all youth of the northern cheyenne nation and surrounding areas to be productive citizens.
To inspire and enable all young people, especially those most in need of our services, to realize and develop their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens in a global society.
To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.
To enable and inspire all young people, ages five to eighteen, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens.
To enable young people, especially those who need us most to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.
To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive and caring citizens.
To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of the Wisconsin Rapids Area Inc and the most unlike its peers is Dar Boys & Girls Club. 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 31 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 9% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
29 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 UNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKESHA COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOX VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC ↗
- Who funds ALL-IN MILWAUKEE INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF OSHKOSH INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PORTAGE ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF KENOSHA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER LA CROSS ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE GREATER CHIPPEWA VALLEY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DANE COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE TRI-COUNTY AREA ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF JANESVILLE INC ↗
- Who funds THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF FOND DU LAC INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WEST CENTRAL WIS ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE NORTHWOODS INC ↗
- Who funds WOODLAND BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE WAUSAU AREA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE WISCONSIN RAPIDS AREA INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SHEBOYGAN COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BARRON COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF DOOR COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LAC COURTE ORE ↗
- Who funds BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SPARTA INC ↗
- Who funds STATELINE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS INC ↗
- Who funds BOYS' CLUB OF DULUTH ↗
- Who funds MASHKISIBI BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds DAR BOYS & GIRLS CLUB ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Boys & Girls Clubs of America · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Otto Bremer Trust · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc · Good360 · Boys & Girls Clubs of America (Group Return) · The Gap Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Inspire Brands Foundation Inc · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund
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 Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc 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.
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.