Skip to content
Bradshaw-Knight Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Bradshaw-Knight Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$148k
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
6
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Environment$144kCivil Rights$123kHealth$110kFood & Nutrition$64kReligion$58kArts & Culture$54kYouth Development$34kEducation$26kOther$0
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k3 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $133k
$10,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT$25,000
DRAMA CLUB$20,000
PEOPLE BUILDING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH GRACE AND ACTION$15,000
UW FOUNDATION$13,000
DRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY$10,000
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK$10,000
MIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES$10,000
DELORES MISSION FODMC$10,000
BSP FREE CLINIC$10,000
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER$10,000
WORLD FOOD PROGRAM$5,150
Individual grant recipient$5,000
ORGANIC EYE$5,000
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 (FY24–24, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%WORLD FOOD PROGRAM: $5k → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
WI
NY
CA
MO
VA
AR
DC
AL
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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$544k · 18 repeat orgs$175k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +29% since the first grant, against +27% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
32

Total granted

$544k
$160k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+29%
+27%

Still filing today

67%
38%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentArts & CultureHealthEducationCrime & LegalFood & NutritionOther
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

  • SC
    SPECIALTY CARE FREE CLINIC INC
    3× · 2021–2024 · $60k · revenue +69%
  • DA
    DRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $35k · revenue +141%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
    2× · 2020–2024 · $24k · revenue +29%

Funded once

  • Nehemiah Project Inc
    one grant, 2021 · $25k · revenue +10%
  • G
    GIIWEDINONG
    one grant, 2023 · $20k
  • PI
    PORCHLIGHT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue +27%
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
Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota

Support the development and enhancement of sustainable farming systems through farmer-to-farmer networking, innovation, demonstration, and education.

Food & Nutrition
2
Fondy Food Center Inc

He fondy food center connects greater milwaukee to local, fresh food- from farm to market to table - so that children learn better, adults live healthier, and communities celebrate cultural food traditions.

Food & Nutrition
3
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy

Iatp works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.

Food & Nutrition
4
Natural Resources Foundation of

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

—
5
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board Inc

To help grow the demand for wisconsin milk by providing programs that enhance the competitiveness of the wisconsin dairy industry.

—
6
American Farmland Trust

Saves the land that sustains us by protecting farmland, promoting sound farming practices, and keeping farmers on the land.

Food & Nutrition
7
Rooted Wi Inc

We envision collaborations rooted in food, land and learning so that people can grow and thrive in healthy, equitable and sustainable neighborhoods.

Environment
8
Socially Responsible Agriculture Project Inc

To conduct charitable, scientific and educational activities designed to foster the production of food in a manner that is economically viable and environmentally sound and provides for healthy and humanely raised products.

Food & Nutrition
9
Southern Wisconsin Bird Alliance Inc

Our mission is to protect and improve habitat for birds and other wildlife through land acquisition and management, education, and advocacy.

Environment
10
Wmc Litigation Center Inc

The wmc litigation center's mission is to represent clients in legal actions to foster and protect the free enterprise system.

Education
11
Environmental Initiative

Catalyze collaboration across perspectives, power, and systems for social equity and environmental health.

Environment
12
Groundwork Milwaukee Inc

Bring about the sustained regeneration, improvement, and management of the physical environment by developing community-based partnerships that empower people, businesses, and organizations to promote environmental, economic, and social…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Aldo Leopold Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Young Shakespeare Players 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

26 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. 26 of the 52 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/26
Grantees still filing
18/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

URBAN LEAGUE: $100,000 · OtherURBAN LEAGUEDELORES MISSION FODMC: $46,000 · OtherDELORES MISSION FODMCPEOPLE BUILDING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH GRACE AND ACTION INC: $33,000 · OtherPEOPLE BUILDING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH GRACE AND ACTION INCIndividual grant recipient: $25,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipientGIIWEDINONG: $20,000 · OtherREAP: $15,000 · OtherMADISON URBAN MINISTRY: $15,000 · OtherNehemiah Project Inc: $25,000 · OtherNehemiah Project IncSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $15,000 · OtherPORCHLIGHT INC: $15,000 · Other+24 more: $86,650 · Other+24 moreLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $75,000 · EnvironmentLAND STEWARDSHIP PR…DRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $35,000 · EnvironmentDRIFTLESS AREA LAND…SUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EnvironmentSUSTAINABLE MARKETS…+2 more: $3,500 · EnvironmentSPECIALTY CARE FREE CLINIC INC: $60,000 · HealthSPECIALTY C…MARBLESEED INC: $15,000 · HealthMARBLESEED …+1 more: $1,000 · HealthUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $24,000 · EducationWISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Education+1 more: $500 · EducationDRAMA CLUB INC: $27,500 · Arts & CultureYOUNG SHAKESPEARE PLAYERS INC: $3,000 · Arts & Culture+1 more: $500 · Arts & CultureSECOND HARVEST FOODBANK OF SOUTHERN WI: $23,000 · Food & NutritionORGANICEYE INC: $6,000 · Food & NutritionSTEPHEN AND LAUREL BROWN FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 · ReligionJUSTDANE: $13,000 · Religion
Other$396,150Environment$123,500Health$76,000Education$34,500Arts & Culture$31,000Food & Nutrition$29,000Religion$28,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: $75,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetSPECIALTY CARE FREE CLINIC INC: $60,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetDRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $35,000 over 4y, 1.0% of budgetDRAMA CLUB INC: $27,500 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetNehemiah Project Inc: $25,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $24,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOODBANK OF SOUTHERN WI: $23,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPORCHLIGHT INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMARBLESEED INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSTEPHEN AND LAUREL BROWN FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetJUSTDANE: $13,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetSKYSAVER PRODUCTIONS INC: $12,500 over 2y, 8.3% of budgetWISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetSUSTAINABLE MARKETS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMIDWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetMOSES - WISDOM OF MADISON INC: $7,500 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetORGANICEYE INC: $6,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC: $5,150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBeyond Pesticides: $2,500 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetRecovery Foundation Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetGROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMADISON BALLET INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMADISON PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Madison Gas and Elect…Madison Community Fou…Alliant Energy Founda…Veridian Foundation I…Endres Manufacturing …The Evjue Foundation …Green Bay Packers Fou…United Way of Dane Co…Michael Fields Agricu…Lau & Bea Christensen…Trustage Foundation I…The Roots and Wings F…
Madison Gas and Electric Foundation IncWI25.9× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Madison Gas and Electric Foundation Inc · Madison Community Foundation · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Veridian Foundation Inc · Endres Manufacturing Foundation Inc · The Evjue Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · United Way of Dane County Inc · Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Inc · Lau & Bea Christensen Charitable Foundat · Trustage Foundation Inc · The Roots and Wings Foundation Inc

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 Bradshaw-Knight Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Bradshaw-Knight Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%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 · 0–50%
    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 52 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Bradshaw-Knight’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