Skip to content
Ellamae Siebert Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Ellamae Siebert Foundation Inc

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.

$75k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2025.

Health$192kEducation$164kHousing & Shelter$95kFood & Nutrition$41kScience & Tech$40kAnimals$10kHuman Services$5k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $65k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PLANNED PARENTHOOD$15,000
FAMILY PROMISE OF OZAUKEE$15,000
UNIVERSITY OF WI FOUNDATION$15,000
MILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY$10,000
UNIVERSITY OF WI FOUNDATION$10,000
HUNGER TASK FORCE$7,500
LITERARY SERVICES OF WISCONSIN$2,500
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 90% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%HOPE CENTER: $5k → 5%FAMILY PROMISE OF OZAUKEE: $15k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $41k → 10%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS: $15k → 17%FAMILY PROMISE OF OZAUKEE: $15k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $20k → 10%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS: $15k → 17%FAMILY PROMISE OF OZAUKEE: $10k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $20k → 10%PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN IN: $25k → 17%FAMILY PROMISE OF OZAUKEE: $10k → 6%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $15k → 10%UWM RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $20k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $15k → 10%UWM RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $15k → 10%DISCOVERY WORLD: $5k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF WI FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%HUNGER TASK FORCE: $10k → 17%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $5k → 10%HUNGER TASK FORCE: $8k → 17%HUNGER TASK FORCE: $8k → 17%WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $5k → 17%HUNGER TASK FORCE: $5k → 17%WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $5k → 17%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $15k → 17%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $15k → 17%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $12k → 17%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $10k → 17%PLANNED PARENTHOOD: $10k → 17%UWM RESEARCH FOUNDATION: $10k → 17%KATHY'S HOUSE: $25k → 17%KATHY'S HOUSE: $10k → 17%KATHY'S HOUSE: $10k → 17%KATHY'S HOUSE: $10k → 17%KATHY'S HOUSE: $10k → 17%KATHY'S HOUSE: $10k → 17%MILWAUKEE HABIT FOR HUMANITY: $10k → 17%MILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $10k → 17%MILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $10k → 17%MILWAUKEE HABIT FOR HUMANITY: $10k → 17%MILWAUKEE HABIT FOR HUMANITY: $5k → 17%HUNGER TASK FORCE: $10k → 17%LITERARY SERVICES OF WISCONSIN: $3k → 17%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$509k · 9 repeat orgs$38k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
3

Total granted

$509k
$35k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+7%
+78%

Still filing today

78%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthHousing & ShelterPublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementAnimalsOther
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
    8× · 2017–2025 · $156k · revenue +39%
  • MILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC
    4× · 2017–2025 · $45k · revenue +283%
  • UR
    UWM RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $40k · revenue +7%

Funded once

  • PP
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN INC
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +7%
  • HC
    Hope Center Incgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $5k · revenue +87%
  • DISCOVERY WORLD LTDgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $5k · revenue +78%
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 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
2
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
3
The Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development Inc

The partnership is committed to housing for everyone because it's essential for building healthy communities. we build effective public-private partnerships to expand access to affordable housing options. we do this by directly developing…

Recreation & Sports
4
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
5
Uwm At Waukesha Foundation Inc

To raise scholarship money for students and raise the awareness of the campus and all of the activities on campus

—
6
Friendship House of Milwaukee
—
7
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.

—
8
Disability Rights Wisconsin Inc

Legal protection and advocacy to protect the rights of people with disabilities in wisconsin.

—
9
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
10
University Research Park Incorporated

The organization acquires, holds, administers, and distributes real and personal property for the benefit of the university of wisconsin (uw)-madison.

Education
11
Milwaukee Women Inc

Milwaukee women inc is an organization of executives determined to change the quality and composition of corporate boards to maximize the performance of public and private companies with a focus on women and women of color.

Education
12
Mathematics Institute of Wisconsin Co Kathryn Leverenz
Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wisconsin Humane Society; the most unlike its peers is Discovery World Ltd. 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

11 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. 11 of the 13 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
7/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $156,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATIO…+2 more: $7,500 · EducationPLANNED PARENTHOOD: $62,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOODHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $40,500 · OtherHUNGER TASK FORCE INCPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WIS: $30,000 · OtherPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISHope Center Inc: $5,000 · OtherKathy's House Inc: $75,000 · HealthKathy's House IncPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN INC: $25,000 · HealthPLANNED PARENTHOOD O…FAMILY PROMISE OF OZAUKEE COUNTY: $50,000 · Public BenefitFAMILY PRO…MILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $45,000 · Housing & ShelterMILWAUKEE…UWM RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 · Community ImprovementWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $10,000 · Animals
Education$163,500Other$137,500Health$100,000Public Benefit$50,000Housing & Shelter$45,000Community Improvement$40,000Animals$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $156,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetKathy's House Inc: $75,000 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetFAMILY PROMISE OF OZAUKEE COUNTY: $50,000 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetMILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC: $45,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $40,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetUWM RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC: $40,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHope Center Inc: $5,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetDISCOVERY WORLD LTD: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLITERACY SERVICES OF WISCONSIN INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Alvin a Marion Birnsc…Schoenleber Foundatio…Green Bay Packers Fou…Evan & Marion Helfaer…Joseph and Vera Zilbe…United Way of Greater…Greater Milwaukee Fou…Baird Foundation IncGe Aerospace Foundati…Marjorie Siebert Ayle…R a Stevens Family Fo…Nicholas Family Found…
Alvin a Marion Birnschein Foundation IncWI17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Alvin a Marion Birnschein Foundation Inc · Schoenleber Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Evan & Marion Helfaer Foundation · Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Marjorie Siebert Aylen Foundation · R a Stevens Family Foundation · Nicholas Family Foundation Trust

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 Ellamae Siebert Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ellamae Siebert Foundation Inc. 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%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Ellamae Siebert Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Ellamae Siebert Foundation Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 13 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 Ellamae Siebert’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