How much did First Weber Foundation Inc grant in FY2022?

First Weber Foundation Inc reported 2 itemized grants totaling $32,000, out of $159,778 in total grant expense reported on the return in its FY2022 IRS filing.

Where is First Weber Foundation Inc based?

First Weber Foundation Inc is based in WI.

First Weber Foundation Inc

Foundation Dossiers Also receives grants — funding profile →

· Public charity

First Weber Foundation Inc

To expand its commitment to strengthen our communities through both charitable contributions and volunteer leadership.

$160k

Granted FY2022

Grants FY2022

States reached

$17k

Largest

01What you fund

01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2022.

Health$213kHousing & Shelter$147kFood & Nutrition$140kHuman Services$129kYouth Development$123kPhilanthropy$36kEducation$36kReligion$31kOther$0

02FY2022 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

The 2 grants below total $32,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $159,778 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $127,778 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.

$17,000

Median grant

States reached

$120k

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
MILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY	$17,000
UNICEF	$15,000

02The need

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–21, $141k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 35% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

75%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$702k · 23 repeat orgs$233k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +54% since the first grant, against +49% for the ones you funded once.

23 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2022, 22 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$702k

$218k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%

+49%

Still filing today

83%

76%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 53% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $15k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesHealthYouth DevelopmentHousing & ShelterEducationPublic Safety & DisasterOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

MILWAUKEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INC
4× · 2018–2022 · $107k · revenue +156%
SH
SECOND HARVEST FOODBANK OF SOUTHERN WI
5× · 2017–2021 · $68k · revenue +70%
TB
THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC
5× · 2017–2021 · $51k · revenue +34%

Funded once

BF
BIKES FOR KIDS WISCONSIN INCgraduated
one grant, 2020 · $22k · revenue +561% · 51% of their budget
RR
Realtors Relief Foundationgraduated
one grant, 2017 · $17k · revenue +51%
BI
Balance Inc
one grant, 2019 · $14k · revenue -8%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

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

Disability Rights Wisconsin Inc

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

—

United Way of Wisconsin Inc

United way of wisconsin is dedicated to supporting and enriching a strong statewide united way network that maximizes the capacity of local united ways to address human needs, improve lives and create lasting positive change across…

Philanthropy

Goodwill Industries of South Central Wisconsin Inc

Goodwill of south central wisconsin's mission is to help people in our community to live, work and thrive through housing, employment and supportive services. see schedule o for continuationsupported employment and job skills training are…

Employment

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

Pathways of Wisconsin Inc

Pathways of wisconsin provides supported employment opportunities and empowerment through quality, person-centered programming for individuals of all abilities.

Human Services

Renew Wisconsin Inc

Renew wisconsin leads and accelerates the transformation to wisconsin's renewable energy future through advocacy, education, and collaboration.

Environment

Community Shares of Wisconsin Inc

Community shares of wisconsin (csw), together with its donors and approximately 70 member nonprofits, addresses social, economic, and environmental problems through grassroots activities, advocacy, research and public education.

—

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

Kishwaukee United Way

To improve lives by sharing community resources

Philanthropy

United Way of Dane County Inc

Unite the community to achieve measurable results that change lives.

—

Racine County Opportunity Center

Our focus is on making shortterm investments which will significantly improve the longterm wellbeing of our clients. we will measure our performance against these standards by continuously communicating with our clients, and will take…

Human Services

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Easter Seals Wisconsin Inc and the most unlike its peers is Colsac Skiers Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 31 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 11% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

2%1/54

the rest of the field

11%

1,982/18,695

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

04the grantee network

45 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 45 of the 54 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

43/45

Grantees still filing

35/45

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$327,693Human Services$162,221Housing & Shelter$125,232Health$116,025Youth Development$116,022Food & Nutrition$68,190Philanthropy$35,136

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Green Bay Packers FoundationWI30.9× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Green Bay Packers Foundation · Madison Gas and Electric Foundation Inc · Madison Community Foundation · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc · United Way of Dane County Inc · Otto Bremer Trust · Baird Foundation Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Sub-Zero Group Foundation Inc · The Evjue Foundation Inc

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization First Weber Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get no government money at all

13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

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 camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines