Skip to content

· Private foundation

Graef Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$82k
Granted FY2024still arriving
11
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$25k
Largest
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 2024.

Education$321kScience & Tech$9kYouth Development$1kAnimals$250
02FY2024 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k9 grants · $32k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
$3,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$726k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON$25,000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION$25,000
UWM FOUNDATION$8,000
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY$6,000
SHARP LITERACY INC$5,000
MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING$3,000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN PLATTEVILLE$3,000
ACE MENTOR PROGRAM OF ILLINOIS$3,000
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS INC WISCONSIN SECTION$1,500
STEM FORWARD INC$1,500
KIDS BUILDING WISCONSIN$1,000
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 (FY22–24, $12k) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%SHARP LITERACY INC: $5k → 17%SHARP LITERACY INC: $5k → 17%SHARP Literacy: $2k → 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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$322k · 11 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

11 repeat relationships: 9 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
6

Total granted

$322k
$7k

Still filing today

64%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentOther
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
    4× · 2020–2024 · $34k · revenue +29%
  • MU
    Marquette University
    6× · 2017–2024 · $24k · revenue +46%
  • THE UWM FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $22k · revenue +48%

Funded once

  • AM
    ACE Mentor Program of Greater Milwaukee
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • MS
    MSOE-American Society of Civil Engineers
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
  • AW
    ASCE WI SECTION SE BRANCH YMG
    one grant, 2019 · $1k
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
Mathematics Institute of Wisconsin Co Kathryn Leverenz
Education
2
University of Miami

See Form 990, Part I, Line 1, Description of Organization Mission.

Education
3
American Society of Civil Engineers Illinois Section

To advance the knowledge and practice of engineering in the public interest. To provide member societies with reliable information that affects the engineering profession. To provide a forum for engineering societies to exchange views on…

—
4
Michigan Section of Asce

Promote the practice of civil engineering.

—
5
National Science and Technology Medals Foundation Inc

The nstmf's mission is to build inclusive stem communities across the united states. fundamental to these communities are the significant, inspirational connections we foster between the individuals who have received national recognition…

—
6
University of Missouri College of Engineering Foundation

The umcoe foundation provides gap-filling resources to help mizzou's college of engineering continue its quest for excellence in meeting current and future challenges during a period when state budgets have been drastically restricted for…

Education
7
Northern Illinois University Foundation

The niu foundation's mission is to energize and connect the private sector with the niu community to secure and steward resources that support the future and growth of niu.

Education
8
Women in Technology Wisconsin Inc

The mission of women in technology is to attract, grow, and retain women of all ages in technology-related careers. wit collaborates with professionals, companies, and communities to help women in technology of all ages and stages - from…

Youth Development
9
Engineers Foundation of Wisconsin Inc

To provide engineering scholarships and support mathematics education.

—
10
Agc of Greater Milwaukee Inc Education and Research Foundation

To provide a solid base of educational and research programs that will allow deserving students the chance to pursue their dreams of a career in construction.

—
11
Western New England University

Western new england university, a comprehensive private institution with a tradition of excellence in teaching and scholarship and a commitment to service, awards undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in various departments from…

Education
12
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Paper Science Foundation Inc

To further the study of pulp and paper science and engineering at uwsp by providing financial assistance to students, and opportunity for alumni and leaders to strengthen the pulp and paper science program, encouraging students to enroll…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Uwm Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Sharp Literacy Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 19 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
6/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: $136,000 · OtherUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON: $31,500 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISONUniversity of Wisconsin-Platteville: $21,450 · OtherUniversity of Wisconsin-PlattevilleAFE MILWAUKEE CHAPTER 12: $7,500 · Other+8 more: $11,500 · Other+8 moreUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $34,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATIONMarquette University: $24,000 · EducationMarquette UniversityTHE UWM FOUNDATION INC: $22,000 · EducationTHE UWM FOUNDATION INCMILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $21,000 · EducationMILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERINGACE MENTOR PROGRAM OF ILLINOIS INC: $9,000 · EducationACE MENTOR PROGRAM OF ILLINOIS INCSHARP LITERACY INC: $12,000 · Human ServicesKIDS BUILDING WISCONSIN INC: $1,000 · Youth Development
Other$207,950Education$110,000Human Services$12,000Youth Development$1,000

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 budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $34,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMarquette University: $24,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UWM FOUNDATION INC: $22,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: $21,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetSHARP LITERACY INC: $12,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetACE MENTOR PROGRAM OF ILLINOIS INC: $9,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetSTEM FORWARD INC: $3,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetAMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Wisconsin Section: $1,500 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetKIDS BUILDING WISCONSIN INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% 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 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Marquette University ↗
  • Who funds THE UWM FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING ↗
  • Who funds SHARP LITERACY INC ↗
  • Who funds ACE MENTOR PROGRAM OF ILLINOIS INC ↗
  • Who funds STEM FORWARD INC ↗
  • Who funds AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Wisconsin Section ↗
  • Who funds KIDS BUILDING WISCONSIN 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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Greater Milwaukee Foundation IncWI13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc

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 Graef Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Graef 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Graef Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Graef 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 19 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Graef’s filings →

    More from the funding graph