Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Gordon R Connor Charitable 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.

$49k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$36k
Largest
01What you fund
0193% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY20172025.

Environment$304kPublic Benefit$59kPhilanthropy$10kRecreation & Sports$5kHealth$500Youth Development$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $4k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $46k
$1,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$439k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC$35,500
BRADLEY IMPACT FUND INC$10,000
INSTITUTE FOR REFORMING GOVERNMENT$1,000
CAMP MANITOW-WISH YMCA INC$1,000
JUDICIAL WATCH INC$1,000
ARMY A CLUB$500
02The need
03

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 94% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ARMY A CLUB: $500 → 14%JUDICIAL WATCH INC: $11k → 14%SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC: $14k → 13%INSTITUTE FOR REFORMING GOVERNMENT: $1k → 5%UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON: $500 → 10%CAMP MANITOW-WISH YMCA INC: $4k → 10%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $45k → 14%BRADLEY IMPACT FUND INC: $10k → 17%THE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: $11k → 7%JUDICIAL WATCH INC: $6k → 14%SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC: $2k → 13%CAMP MANITOW-WISH YMCA INC: $1k → 10%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $40k → 14%BADGER INSTITUTE INC: $5k → 17%THE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: $6k → 7%JUDICIAL WATCH INC: $5k → 14%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $36k → 14%BADGER INSTITUTE INC: $3k → 17%THE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: $5k → 7%JUDICIAL WATCH INC: $1k → 14%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $36k → 14%BADGER INSTITUTE INC: $3k → 17%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $31k → 14%BADGER INSTITUTE INC: $3k → 17%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $27k → 14%WISCONSIN POLICY-RESEARCH: $3k → 17%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $26k → 14%WISCONSIN POLICY-RESEARCH: $3k → 17%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $26k → 14%CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $23k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
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.

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.

04

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 12% of Gordon R Connor Charitable Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another. Read by recipient address, 84% of the giving stays in WI; read by stated purpose it is 88% — more of the work is directed home than the recipients' locations suggest.

Gordon R Connor Charitable Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

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.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$350k · 6 repeat orgs$2k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
1

Total granted

$350k
$500

Still filing today

83%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
Public BenefitArts & CultureEnvironmentEducationOther

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

  • CF
    CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $288k · revenue +124% · 51% of their budget
  • JUDICIAL WATCH INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $23k · revenue +3%
  • SR
    SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC
    2× · 2017–2018 · $16k · revenue +11%

Funded once

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON
    one grant, 2024 · $500

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.

1
Minnesota Forest Industries Inc

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

2
Institute for Conservation Leadership

To support healthy communities and a healthy earth, the institute for conservation leadership strengthens leaders, organizations, coalitions and networks.

Community Improvement
3
International Republican Institute

Iri advances freedom and democracy worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, democratic governance and the rule of law.

Education
4
World Resources Institute

Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…

International
5
Good Work Institute Inc

The charitable activities of the Good Work Institute are designed to strengthen collaboration; address legacies of unequal power; and encourage a transition to regenerative ecological and social systems.

Human Services
6
Illinois Policy Institute

The institute is a free market oriented think tank dedicated to gathering, disseminating, and educating illinois constituents on local, state, and federal public policy issues facing illinois.

Public Benefit
7
National Institute for Public Policy Inc

The institute works as a public education organization that focuses on a wide spectrum of rapidly evolving foreign policy and international issues.

8
Environmental Investigation Agency

To establish and promote programs to protect the global climate, forests, wildlife and the natural environment, through research, advocacy, and investigation.

International
9
Iit Research Institute

Perform basic research and preclinical efficacy assessments of new molecular entities being developed for the prevention and treatment of cancer and infectious disease. Discover new pathways and targets for the design and development of…

Science & Tech
10
Partnership for Policy Integrity

Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses data-driven advocacy and litigation to fight for forests, communities and the climate.

Environment
11
The Rand Corporation

Help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.

Public Benefit
12
The Governance Institute

The organization's mission is concerned with exploring, explaining, and easing problems associated with both the separation and division of powers in the american federal system.

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Badger Institute Inc and the most unlike its peers is Camp Five Museum 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.

05the grantee network

8 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 11 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

CAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC — $288,250 · Arts & CultureCAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INCJUDICIAL WATCH INC — $23,125 · Public BenefitJUDICIAL WATCH IN…Leadership Institute — $22,125 · Public BenefitLeadership Instit…BADGER INSTITUTE INC — $12,500 · Public BenefitBADGER INSTITUTE …SUSTAINABLE RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC — $16,000 · EnvironmentIndividual grant recipient — $5,000 · OtherCAMP MANITO-WISH YMCA INC — $5,000 · OtherARMY A CLUB — $500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON — $500 · OtherBRADLEY IMPACT FUND INC — $10,000 · PhilanthropyINSTITUTE FOR REFORMING GOVERNMENT INC — $1,000 · Education
Arts & Culture$288,250Public Benefit$57,750Environment$16,000Other$11,000Philanthropy$10,000Education$1,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetCAMP FIVE MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC — $288,250 over 9y, 51% of budgetJUDICIAL WATCH INC — $23,125 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetLeadership Institute — $22,125 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetSUSTAINABLE RESOURCES INSTITUTE INC — $16,000 over 2y, 3.6% of budgetBADGER INSTITUTE INC — $12,500 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetCAMP MANITO-WISH YMCA INC — $5,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budget
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.

Hamilton Roddis Foundation IncWI15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Hamilton Roddis Foundation Inc · Connor Foundation · McP Charitable Foundation · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Gordon R Connor Charitable 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
202122232425
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%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
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Gordon R Connor Charitable Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Gordon R Connor Charitable 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 directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 11 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph