Skip to content
Draeger Family Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx at a glance

· Private foundation

Draeger Family Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$62k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$12k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2018 to 2025.

Health$105kEducation$84kHuman Services$60kPhilanthropy$50kReligion$44kYouth Development$21kHousing & Shelter$5kEnvironment$4kOther$0
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $39k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $23k
$6,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UW FOUNDATION (MED RESEARCH)$12,000
CEDAR CREST FOUNDATION$11,000
CEDAR CREST INC$6,000
BLACKHAWK TECHNICAL COLLEGE$6,000
SALVATION ARMY$6,000
Individual grant recipient$6,000
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB$5,022
PREGNANCY HELPLINE$5,000
GIFTS MENS SHELTER$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 (FY19–25, $11k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%GIFTS MENS SHELTER: $5k → 10%ECHO INC: $3k → 10%ECHO INC: $3k → 10%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$346k · 14 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
3

Total granted

$346k
$12k

Still filing today

43%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 63% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $23k went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHousing & ShelterHealthEducationEnvironmentOther
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

  • CC
    CEDAR CREST FOUNDATION
    6× · 2020–2025 · $50k · revenue ×14 · 85% of their budget
  • CC
    CEDAR CREST INC
    6× · 2018–2025 · $43k · revenue +52%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
    5× · 2018–2024 · $42k · revenue +43%

Funded once

  • HO
    HOUSE OF MERCY
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
  • CC
    CHAPELSTREET CHURCH
    one grant, 2018 · $5k
  • RC
    ROCK COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY
    one grant, 2018 · $2k
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 20 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SALVATION ARMY: $43,000 · OtherSALVATION ARMYCARGILL UNITED METHODIST FOUNDATION: $39,000 · OtherCARGILL UNITED METHODIST FOUNDATIONUW FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH: $24,000 · OtherUW FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL RESEARCHBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB: $20,532 · OtherBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBPREGNANCY HELPLINE: $20,000 · OtherPREGNANCY HELPLINEBLACKHAWK TECHNICAL COLLEGE: $18,000 · OtherBLACKHAWK TECHNICAL COLLEGECEDAR CREST INC HEALTHCARE CENTER: $12,000 · OtherUW FOUNDATION (MED RESEARCH): $12,000 · OtherUW FOUNDATION SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $12,000 · OtherBLACKHAWK TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $12,000 · Other+4 more: $18,000 · Other+4 moreCEDAR CREST FOUNDATION: $50,000 · Housing & ShelterCEDAR CREST FO…CEDAR CREST INC: $43,000 · HealthCEDAR CREST …UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $42,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY O…EVERYONE COOPERATING TO HELP OTHERS INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesGOD IS FAITHFUL TEMPORARY SHELTER INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesROTARY BOTANICAL GARDENS INC: $4,000 · Environment
Other$230,532Housing & Shelter$50,000Health$43,000Education$42,000Human Services$11,000Environment$4,000

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 budgetCEDAR CREST FOUNDATION: $50,000 over 6y, 85% of budgetCEDAR CREST INC: $43,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $42,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetBLACKHAWK TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC: $12,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetEVERYONE COOPERATING TO HELP OTHERS INC: $6,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGOD IS FAITHFUL TEMPORARY SHELTER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetROTARY BOTANICAL GARDENS INC: $4,000 over 2y, 0.2% 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.

  • Who funds CEDAR CREST FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CEDAR CREST INC ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds BLACKHAWK TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds EVERYONE COOPERATING TO HELP OTHERS INC ↗
  • Who funds GOD IS FAITHFUL TEMPORARY SHELTER INC ↗
  • Who funds ROTARY BOTANICAL GARDENS INC ↗

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.

Alliant Energy Founda…Janesville Foundation…Community Foundation …Vanguard Charitable E…Amazonsmile Foundation
Alliant Energy Foundation IncWI15.5× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Janesville Foundation Inc · Community Foundation of Southern Wisconsin Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Draeger Family Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Draeger Family Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 20 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Draeger Family Foundation Xxx-Xx-Xxxx’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