Skip to content
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$1.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$726k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Youth Development$7.1MPhilanthropy$2.0M
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 1 grants below total $725,543, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,286,977 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $561,434 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.
$725,543
Median grant
1
States reached
$78M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNITED WAY$725,543
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 (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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOX VALLEY: $163k → 7%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOX VALLEY: $150k → 7%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOX VALLEY: $129k → 7%BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE FOX VALLEY: $99k → 7%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 100% of Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 99% of the giving stays in WI; by stated purpose, 0%.

Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.2M · 29 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

29 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 28 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
0

Total granted

$9.2M
$0

Still filing today

97%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Youth DevelopmentPhilanthropyEducationHuman ServicesRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF WISCONSIN INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $1.2M · revenue +127%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOX VALLEY INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $541k · revenue +575%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $524k · revenue +60%

Funded once

    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
    Boys Girls Club
    —
    2
    Boys and Girls Club of Augusta/Waynesboro

    To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring and responsible citizens.

    Youth Development
    3
    Boys and Girls Clubs of Siouxland Inc

    To inspire and enable all young people to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

    Youth Development
    4
    Boys and Girls Clubs of West Central Missouri

    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.

    Youth Development
    5
    Boys & Girls Club of the Missouri River Area

    To enable all young people, especially those who need them most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

    Youth Development
    6
    The Boys & Girls Clubs Inc

    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.

    —
    7
    Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest Virginia Inc

    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.

    Youth Development
    8
    Boys & Girls Clubs of the San Gorgonio Pass

    To inspire and enable all young people especially those in need to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens.

    Education
    9
    Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Peoria Inc

    To enable young people, especially those who need us most to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens.

    Youth Development
    10
    Boys and Girls Club of Glacier Country

    To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

    Youth Development
    11
    Boys & Girls Club of the Greater West Plains Area

    To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive and caring citizens.

    Youth Development
    12
    Boys & Girls Club of Northwest Colo

    The mission of the clubs is to enable and inspire the youth of our area to reach their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens. the clubs offers core programs designed to engage youth with peers and caring adults to…

    Youth Development
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys & Girls Club of the Wisconsin Rapids Area Inc; 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.
    05the grantee network

    29 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.

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

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    20
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    28/29
    Grantees still filing
    24/29
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC: $523,799 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF OSHKOSH INC: $353,501 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF OSHKOSH INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PORTAGE: $324,685 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PORTAGEBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER LA CROSS: $302,254 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER LA CROSSBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE GREATER CHIPPEWA VALLEY INC: $286,961 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE GREATER CHIPPEWA VALLEY I…BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DANE COUNTY INC: $269,233 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DANE COUNTY INCBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE TRI-COUNTY AREA: $255,268 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE TRI-COUNTY AREABOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF JANESVILLE INC: $223,824 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF JANESVILLE INCTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $211,029 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF FOND DU LAC INC: $208,808 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WEST CENTRAL WIS: $203,004 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE NORTHWOODS INC: $195,449 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE WAUSAU AREA INC: $156,832 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE WISCONSIN RAPIDS AREA INC: $150,909 · Youth Development+4 more: $407,779 · Youth Development+4 moreUNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $2,044,994 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKES…UNITED WAY OF WISCONSIN INC: $1,213,594 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF WISCONSIN INCWOODLAND BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC: $160,369 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SHEBOYGAN COUNTY INC: $120,836 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF DOOR COUNTY INC: $116,986 · OtherSTATELINE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS INC: $102,459 · OtherMASHKISIBI BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC: $44,907 · Other+1 more: $16,045 · OtherBOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOX VALLEY INC: $541,456 · Human ServicesALL-IN MILWAUKEE INC: $400,000 · EducationBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF KENOSHA INC: $323,765 · Recreation & Sports
    Youth Development$4,073,335Philanthropy$3,258,588Other$561,602Human Services$541,456Education$400,000Recreation & Sports$323,765

    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 budgetUNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $2,044,994 over 5y, 1.0% of budgetUNITED WAY OF WISCONSIN INC: $1,213,594 over 3y, 22% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOX VALLEY INC: $541,456 over 4y, 2.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE BAY AND LAKES REGION INC: $523,799 over 4y, 6.6% of budgetALL-IN MILWAUKEE INC: $400,000 over 2y, 7.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF OSHKOSH INC: $353,501 over 4y, 3.5% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF PORTAGE: $324,685 over 4y, 6.8% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF KENOSHA INC: $323,765 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER LA CROSS: $302,254 over 4y, 2.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE GREATER CHIPPEWA VALLEY INC: $286,961 over 4y, 5.9% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF DANE COUNTY INC: $269,233 over 4y, 2.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE TRI-COUNTY AREA: $255,268 over 4y, 7.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF JANESVILLE INC: $223,824 over 4y, 11% of budgetTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $211,029 over 4y, 5.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF FOND DU LAC INC: $208,808 over 4y, 6.5% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF WEST CENTRAL WIS: $203,004 over 4y, 4.4% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF THE NORTHWOODS INC: $195,449 over 4y, 6.5% of budgetWOODLAND BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC: $160,369 over 4y, 12% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE WAUSAU AREA INC: $156,832 over 4y, 3.6% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF THE WISCONSIN RAPIDS AREA INC: $150,909 over 4y, 4.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SHEBOYGAN COUNTY INC: $120,836 over 4y, 3.9% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF BARRON COUNTY INC: $119,582 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF DOOR COUNTY INC: $116,986 over 4y, 4.8% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF LAC COURTE ORE: $116,224 over 4y, 5.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SPARTA INC: $106,716 over 3y, 6.6% of budgetSTATELINE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS INC: $102,459 over 4y, 3.1% of budgetBOYS' CLUB OF DULUTH: $65,257 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetMASHKISIBI BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC: $44,907 over 4y, 20% of budgetDAR BOYS & GIRLS CLUB: $16,045 over 3y, 1.7% 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.

    Boys & Girls Clubs of…Herbert H Kohl Charit…Otto Bremer TrustGreen Bay Packers Fou…Greater Green Bay Com…Good360Boys & Girls Clubs of…The Gap FoundationBaird Foundation IncInspire Brands Founda…Alliant Energy Founda…The Blackbaud Giving …
    Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaGA49.4× affinity22 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    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

    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 Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee Inc. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      21report 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.

      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 29 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 Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee’s filings →

      More from the funding graph

      The unnamed billions
      grants reported with no recipient in the public record
      The regranting layer
      51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
      The DAF merry-go-round
      $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
      The endowment market
      who holds foundation money, and what just moved
      The camps
      funders cluster by geography, not ideology
      By state
      where grant money is based, and what stays home