· Private foundation
Gladys E Gores Charitable Foundation Ltd
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k2 grants · $10k
- $10k–50k14 grants · $190k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ASCENSION WISCONSIN FOUNDATION | $25,000 |
| HEAR WISCONSIN | $25,000 |
| URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER | $25,000 |
| META HOUSE | $15,000 |
| CAPUCHIN COMMUNITY SERVICES | $10,000 |
| AMERICAN RED CROSS | $10,000 |
| LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES | $10,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE DOME | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE BOERNER BOTANICAL | $10,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $10,000 |
| KINSHIP COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER | $10,000 |
| HABITAT FOR HUMANITY | $10,000 |
| PBS FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| SOJOUNER FAMILY PEACE CTR | $5,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY23–25, $80k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +33% since the first grant, against +1% for the ones you funded once.
23 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- HFHABITAT FOR HUMANITY NORTHWOODS INC6× · 2018–2025 · $77k · revenue +246%
HEAR Wisconsin Inc3× · 2023–2025 · $75k · revenue +18%- MDMILWAUKEE DOMES ALLIANCE INC4× · 2018–2025 · $62k · revenue +224%
Funded once
- ERENDANGERED RESOURCES FUNDone grant, 2020 · $15k
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INCone grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue +1%- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2021 · $15k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
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…
Engage our community in supporting milwaukee county parks to collectively steward a thriving park system.
Schlitz audubon nature center conserves our land's diverse habitats on lake michigan and provides meaningful experiences and environmental education for all.
Our mission is to protect water quality and wildlife habitat in the river corridors and to advocate for sound land use in the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds.
Protect and restore Wisconsin's natural heritage and ecology through active leadership, education and stewardship
The milwaukee public museum inspires curiosity, excites minds and increases desire to preserve and protect our world's natural and cultural diversity through exhibitions, educational programs, collections and research.
To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.
We're a network of community food centers that specializes in food, love, and community. Hunger is a real problem, and access to food should be a fundamental right. No one should be made to feel they're not deserving of nourishment when…
The war memorial center's mission is to honor the dead and serve the living. we commemorate the courageous men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom while preserving and sharing the stories, experiences, and…
The humane animal welfare society of waukesha county leads the community in animal welfare and assures sanctuary for animals in need.
The milwaukee county historical society was founded in 1935 to collect, preserve, and make available materials relating to the history of the milwaukee community.
To preserve, promote, protect, and enhance wisconsin state parks, forests, trails, and recreation areas.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Urban Ecology Center Inc and the most unlike its peers is Shorewood Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 30 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds HABITAT FOR HUMANITY NORTHWOODS INC ↗
- Who funds HEAR Wisconsin Inc ↗
- Who funds MILWAUKEE DOMES ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF BOERNER BOTANICAL GARDENS INC ↗
- Who funds THE CLEARING ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds KINSHIP MKE INC ↗
- Who funds ASCENSION WISCONSIN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds META HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds SHOREWOOD FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Mequon Nature Preserve Inc ↗
- Who funds THE RIDGES SANCTUARY INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds PBS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Baird Foundation Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Anon Charitable Trust · Frank and Lucille Puncer Foundation Ltd · Dorothy Inbusch Foundation Inc · Jerome J and Dorothy H Holz Family Foundation C/O Donald Tushaus · William Stark Jones Foundation Katherine W Lambert Co-Trustee · The Ros Foundation · Ralph Evinrude Foundation Inc · Milwaukee Jewish Federation Inc · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County 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 Gladys E Gores Charitable Foundation Ltd 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Gladys E Gores Charitable Foundation Ltd?
Find your warmest path to Gladys E Gores Charitable Foundation Ltd 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.