Skip to content
Donald J and Brenda J Debruyn Charitable Foundation Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Donald J and Brenda J Debruyn Charitable Foundation Trust

Its FY2018 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$17k
Granted FY2017
16
Grants FY2017
6
States reached
$2k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

95% of Donald J and Brenda J Debruyn Charitable Foundation Trust’s FY2018 grant dollars went to Lakeshore Community Foundation Inc, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2018 names 16 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2017, the last year Donald J and Brenda J Debruyn Charitable Foundation Trust named its own grantees at scale: 13 organizations, $17k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

13
’17
16
’18

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2018.

Philanthropy$320kReligion$10kHousing & Shelter$6kArts & Culture$5kEducation$4kEnvironment$3kHealth$3kInternational$3kOther$0
02FY2017 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ARCTIC BARNABAS MINISTRIES (HASSEMER SUPPORT)$2,100
INTERVARSITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP USA$1,500
WOODLAND DUNES NATURE CENTER$1,500
HOPE COLLEGE$1,500
LAKESHORE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE$1,000
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GIFTS & RECORDS ADMINISTRATION$1,000
WORDS OF HOPE$1,000
HOPE HOUSE OF MANITOWOC COUNTY$1,000
MANITOWOC COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$1,000
Individual grant recipient$1,000
AURORA HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION$1,000
UW-MANITOWOC FOUNDATION$1,000
OXFAM AMERICA$500
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS$500
THE SALVATION ARMY$500
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, $3k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WHAT IF FOUNDATION: $550 → 10%HOPE HOUSE OF MANITOWOC COUNTY: $1k → 11%HOPE HOUSE OF MANITOWOC COUNTY: $1k → 11%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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$30k · 13 repeat orgs$5k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2017, 0 since wound down; 9 grantees were first funded in FY2017 (too recent to call). Read against FY2017, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
9

Total granted

$30k
$5k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+62%

Still filing today

69%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2018, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18
ReligionHuman ServicesInternationalHousing & ShelterEnvironmentEducationOther
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

  • AB
    ARCTIC BARNABAS MINISTRIES INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $6k · revenue +81%
  • IC
    InterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSA
    2× · 2017–2018 · $3k · revenue +9%
  • WOODLAND DUNES NATURE CENTER AND PRESERVE INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $3k · revenue +181%

Funded once

  • UF
    UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION - MANITOWOC INC
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue -82%
  • LC
    LAKESHORE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $1k · revenue +80%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
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 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.

—
2
Wisconsin Waterfowl Association Inc

The purpose of the association shall be to restore and conserve wisconsin's waterfowl and wetland resources; to educate state waterfowlers during their progression from natural resource consumer to steward; and to promote governmental…

Environment
3
Landmark Conservancy Inc

Landmark conservancy is a nationally accredited, nonprofit conservation organization serving 20 counties across northwest wisconsin. their mission is to conserve wisconsin's natural legacy for everyone...forever.

Environment
4
Wisconsin Policy Forum Inc

We conduct impartial public policy research and analysis to drive informed debate and effective decision-making in the state of wisconsin.

Public Benefit
5
Fund for Lake Michigan Inc

Lake Michigan is one of Wisconsin's greatest assets, and its water is critical to the state's future. The Fund for Lake Michigan is here to help sustain the Lake on behalf of the people and places that depend on it. Our goal is to have a…

Environment
6
Habitat for Humanity of Minnesota Inc

Habitat for humanity brings people together to build homes, community, and hope. through advocacy, collaboration, and leadership, hfh-mn advances the work of minnesota's habitat for humanity affiliates to create and preserve affordable…

—
7
Wisconsin Association of Lakes Inc

The mission of the wisconsin association of lakes is to conserve, enhance, and restore wisconsin's 15,000 lakes to ensure their sustainability for the benefit and collective use and enjoyment for this and future generations.

Environment
8
Door County Land Trust Inc

The door county land trust is a local, non-governmental non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve door county's exceptional lands and waters forever.

Environment
9
Minnesota Forest Industries Inc

To inform and educate the public about forest industries practices in minnesota.

—
10
Oshkosh Convention & Visitors Bureau Inc

To promote oshkosh and winnebago county a premier destination for corporate, sports, and leisure groups and individual visitors.

—
11
Wisconsin Foundation United Church of Christ Inc

Wisconsin foundation united church of christ, inc. is a catalyst for positive change in the life of the united church of christ in wisconsin; promotes a culture of generosity; and connects people across the ucc in working for a more just…

Religion
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lakeshore Community Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lakeshore Wind Ensemble Association 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

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 24 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/19
Grantees still filing
16/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LAKESHORE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $320,382 · PhilanthropyLAKESHORE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC+2 more: $2,100 · PhilanthropyMANITOWOC COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $2,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GIFTS & RECORDS ADMINISTRATION: $2,000 · OtherWORDS OF HOPE INC: $2,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY FOUNDATION - MANITOWOC INC: $1,000 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY: $1,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $1,000 · OtherAPPALACHIA SERVICE PROJECT INC: $1,000 · OtherLAKESHORE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE INC: $1,000 · Other+4 more: $1,050 · OtherARCTIC BARNABAS MINISTRIES INC: $6,300 · ReligionInterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSA: $3,000 · Religion+1 more: $250 · ReligionWOODLAND DUNES NATURE CENTER AND PRESERVE INC: $3,000 · EnvironmentHOPE COLLEGE: $3,000 · EducationHOPE HOUSE OF MANITOWOC COUNTY INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesWhat If Foundation: $550 · Human ServicesMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $1,000 · InternationalOXFAM-AMERICA INC: $1,000 · International
Philanthropy$322,482Other$12,550Religion$9,550Environment$3,000Education$3,000Human Services$2,550International$2,000

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 budgetLAKESHORE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $320,382 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetARCTIC BARNABAS MINISTRIES INC: $6,300 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetInterVarsity Christian FellowshipUSA: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWOODLAND DUNES NATURE CENTER AND PRESERVE INC: $3,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetHOPE COLLEGE: $3,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMANITOWOC COUNTY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $2,500 over 2y, 0.8% of budgetAURORA HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHOPE HOUSE OF MANITOWOC COUNTY INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetMEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLAKESHORE COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetOXFAM-AMERICA INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetAPPALACHIA SERVICE PROJECT INC: $1,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWhat If Foundation: $550 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetGENEVA CAMP & RETREAT CENTER: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWISCONSIN MARITIME MUSEUM INC: $150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINCOURAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $100 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.

Lakeshore Community F…Ruth St John & John D…Harold C Kallies Char…Jane & Arthur Stangel…Herbert H Kohl Charit…Green Bay Packers Fou…Baird Foundation IncRaymond James Charita…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…National Philanthropi…Natl Christian Charit…
Lakeshore Community Foundation IncWI15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Lakeshore Community Foundation Inc · Ruth St John & John Dunham West Foundation Inc · Harold C Kallies Charitable Trust 32f003019 · Jane & Arthur Stangel Fund Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Raymond James Charitable Endowment Fund · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn 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 Donald J and Brenda J Debruyn Charitable Foundation Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Donald J and Brenda J Debruyn Charitable Foundation Trust. 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%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Oxfam-America Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
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 24 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 2017, released 2017. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Donald J and Brenda J Debruyn’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