Skip to content
Charles David Ashley Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Charles David Ashley Foundation

Its FY2018 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.0M
Granted FY2018
16
Grants FY2018
3
States reached
$150k
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 2018.

Food & Nutrition$222kHealth$211kHuman Services$209kHousing & Shelter$175kAnimals$157kArts & Culture$100kRecreation & Sports$25kEducation$2k
02FY2018 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2018

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $98k
  • $50k–250k11 grants · $950k
$50,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC$150,000
UW SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE CO UW FOUNDATION$125,000
SECOND HARVEST FOOD BANK$100,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$100,000
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF EASTERN WISCONSIN INC$100,000
HUNGER TASK FORCE$100,000
FAMILY PROMISE OF WESTERN WAUKESHA COUNTY$75,000
MILWAUKEE PBS$50,000
LIFESTRIDERS$50,000
THE WOMEN'S CENTER$50,000
WISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO$50,000
ERAS SENIOR NETWORK INC$33,195
UNITED PROFESSIONAL HORSEMAN'S FOUNDATION$25,000
HOOVED ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY$20,000
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES INC$10,000
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 (FY17–18, $57k) land where the poverty rate runs at 5%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $50k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $7k → 5%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.

34%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$369k · 6 repeat orgs$732k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2018, 0 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2018 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
2

Total granted

$369k
$4k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+70%
+119%

Still filing today

100%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $728k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
HealthHousing & ShelterAnimalsArts & CultureFood & NutritionHuman 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

  • SH
    SECOND HARVEST FOODBANK OF SOUTHERN WI
    2× · 2017–2018 · $111k · revenue +70%
  • HUNGER TASK FORCE INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $111k · revenue +70%
  • LI
    LIFESTRIDERS INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $61k · revenue +222%

Funded once

  • KM
    KETTLE MORAINE SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
  • TU
    TEAM UP WITH FAMILIES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +119%
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
Habitat for Humanity of Waukesha County Inc

Seeking to put god's love into action. habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.

—
2
Wisconsin Humane Society

The mission of the Wisconsin Humane Society is to make a difference for animals and the people who love them.

Animals
3
Humane Animal Welfare Society of Waukesha County Inc

The humane animal welfare society of waukesha county leads the community in animal welfare and assures sanctuary for animals in need.

Animals
4
Habitat for Humanity of Wisconsin Inc

Our mission is to empower WI Habitat for Humanity affiliates to create one voice that advocates and influences affordable home ownership.

Housing & Shelter
5
Waukesha Free Clinic Inc

The clinic's mission is to support the health care of uninsured and low-income residents of waukesha county. the clinic provides access to free or discounted services and medications.

—
6
Habitat for Humanity of Wisconsin River Area Inc

Build/remodel homes sold at favorable terms to qualified low-income individuals. also, to operate two retail restore outlets to sell donated building materials.

—
7
Wisconsin Horse Alliance
—
8
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…

—
9
Habitat for Humanity of Wausau Inc

Seeking to put god's love into action, habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities, and hope.

—
10
Milwaukee Habitat for Humanity Inc

Seeking to put god's love into action, habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope to realize our vision of a world where everyone has a decent place to live. milwaukee habitat for humanity adheres to a…

Housing & Shelter
11
Wisconsin Lutheran Home Ministries Inc

To share christ's love as we serve the spiritual, physical, intellectual and emotional needs of people entrusted to our care and others whose lives we touch.

—
12
Humane Society of Waupaca County Inc

The Humane Society of Waupaca County (HSWC) provides the following services for the citizens of Waupaca County and the surrounding area. HSWC provides shelter, veterinary care, spaying and neutering and adoption services for homeless pets.

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Elmbrook Humane Society Inc; the most unlike its peers is Habitat for Humanity Northwoods 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

15 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. 15 of the 18 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
15/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UW SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE CO UW FOUNDATION: $125,000 · OtherUW SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE CO UW FOUNDA…HUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $111,000 · OtherHUNGER TASK FORCE INCHABITAT FOR HUMANITY NORTHWOODS INC: $100,000 · OtherHABITAT FOR HUMANITY NORTHWOODS INCMILWAUKEE PBS: $50,000 · OtherMILWAUKEE PBSERAS SENIOR NETWORK INC: $33,195 · OtherERAS SENIOR NETWORK INCUNITED PROFESSIONAL HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · OtherUNITED PROFESSIONAL HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION FO…+1 more: $2,000 · OtherLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $150,000 · HealthLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INCRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF EASTERN WISCONSIN INC: $100,000 · HealthRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES O…LIFESTRIDERS INC: $61,000 · HealthLIFESTRIDERS INCRonald McDonald House Global: $17,000 · HealthSECOND HARVEST FOODBANK OF SOUTHERN WI: $111,000 · Food & NutritionSECOND HARV…FAMILY PROMISE OF WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $75,000 · Housing & Shelter+1 more: $2,000 · Housing & ShelterTHE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $57,000 · Human ServicesWISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO ASSOCIATION INC: $50,000 · Arts & CultureHOOVED ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY: $20,000 · AnimalsELMBROOK HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $12,000 · Animals
Other$446,195Health$328,000Food & Nutrition$111,000Housing & Shelter$77,000Human Services$57,000Arts & Culture$50,000Animals$32,000

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 budgetLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $150,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetSECOND HARVEST FOODBANK OF SOUTHERN WI: $111,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $111,000 over 2y, 0.6% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY NORTHWOODS INC: $100,000 over 1y, 34% of budgetRONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF EASTERN WISCONSIN INC: $100,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetFAMILY PROMISE OF WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $75,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetLIFESTRIDERS INC: $61,000 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetTHE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $57,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetWISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO ASSOCIATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetERAS SENIOR NETWORK INC: $33,195 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetUNITED PROFESSIONAL HORSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetHOOVED ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY: $20,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetELMBROOK HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $12,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetTEAM UP WITH FAMILIES INC: $2,000 over 1y, 1.5% 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.

Waukesha County Commu…Greater Milwaukee Fou…Baird Foundation IncGe Aerospace Foundati…Waukesha Rotary Club …James & Leigh Peterso…Emil Ewald Family Fou…United Way of Greater…Green Bay Packers Fou…The Richard M Schulze…Natl Christian Charit…Donor Advised Charita…
Waukesha County Community FoundationWI19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Waukesha County Community Foundation · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Waukesha Rotary Club Charitable Fund Inc · James & Leigh Peterson Family Foundation · Emil Ewald Family Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Charles David Ashley Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Charles David Ashley Foundation. 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%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 18 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 2018, released 2018. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Charles David Ashley’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