How much did Greater Milwaukee Foundation grant in FY2024?

Greater Milwaukee Foundation reported 838 grants totaling $67,837,198 in its FY2024 IRS filing.

Where is Greater Milwaukee Foundation based?

Greater Milwaukee Foundation is based in Milwaukee, WI.

Greater Milwaukee Foundation

Foundation Dossiers Also receives grants — funding profile →

Milwaukee, WI · Community foundation

Greater Milwaukee Foundation

Inspiring philanthropy, serving donors, strengthening communities, now and for future generations.

$68M

Granted FY2024still arriving

838

Grants FY2024still arriving

States reached

$4.6M

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 FY2020–2024.

Arts & Culture$57MEducation$47MHealth$36MEnvironment$27MPhilanthropy$22MHuman Services$21MHousing & Shelter$18MCommunity Improvement$12MOther$0

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

Each cell is that theme’s share of the year’s giving · ⚡ ringed cells mark a flagged jump.

03FY2024 · 838 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

Grant-size mix · FY2020–FY2024

FY20

15%

32%

51%

$57.0M

FY21

14%

31%

54%

$58.5M

FY22

11%

21%

66%

$74.0M

FY23

19%

37%

41%

$48.2M

FY24

14%

35%

49%

$66.8M

Under $10k$10k–50k$50k–250k$250k+

In FY2020, 51% of your dollars went out in $250k+ checks; by FY2024 that was 49%. Each year’s bar is its own 100%, so the bands show the mix, not the total.

$28,000

Median grant

States reached

$1.1B

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE INC	$4,556,539
SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND	$2,050,000
UWM FOUNDATION	$1,769,297
THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC	$1,525,016
AMERICAN ENDOWMENT FOUNDATION	$1,103,430
UNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE AND WAUKESHA COUNTY	$1,014,984
WISPACT INC	$987,045
CHILDREN'S WISCONSIN	$967,355
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE	$960,000
UNITED COMMUNITY CENTER	$914,619
MILWAUKEE RESCUE MISSION	$801,178
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON	$800,000
ASCENSION WISCONSIN FOUNDATION	$799,516
MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC	$792,234
MILWAUKEE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA	$782,811

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 (FY20–24, $24.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 65% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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

The hardship those neighborhoods carry, beyond income:

Adults without health insurance:reaches 39.2% in some neighborhoods (typically 10%)(CDC, modeled)
Food access:7 of 296 neighborhoods are USDA-designated food deserts(USDA, 2019)

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

The orgs you fund vs the ones you don’t

You back the full breadth of your community — and the organisations you fund hold up better than the rest.

As a community foundation you fund inclusively across the local sector — established institutions and scrappy new efforts alike — which is the mission, not a hedge. Even so, the organisations you back are less fragile than comparable nonprofits nearby that you don't fund.

The kind of organization you back

71% of the organizations you back live mainly on donations, against 49% of the comparable nonprofits nearby you don’t fund. The ones you pick show fewer of the warning signs below than the field you don’t fund.

What they work on

Arts & Culture14% vs 5%
Human Services17% vs 12%

The nearby nonprofits you don’t fund are concentrated in Education, Health.

How they hold up

Run recurring deficits42% vs 36%
Less than a month of cash8% vs 14%
Lean on a single income source50% vs 65%

you fund (406) you don’t (466)· share of each group

You fund (406)You don’t (466)

Median size (revenue)$1.1M$877k

Operating margin4%4%

Financially fragile76%80%

Comparison vs unfunded, size/cause-matched nonprofits in your county. Association, not proof — the funder enables, it does not solely cause.

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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$267M · 847 repeat orgs$23M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +32% since the first grant, against +21% for the ones you funded once.

847 repeat relationships — 644 still active in FY2024, 203 since wound down; 150 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

Of your 868 multi-year relationships, 214 repeat the same amount every year (14% of multi-year dollars), the pattern of a standing commitment. The rest vary year to year. Grant terms aren’t stated in the filing; this is inferred from the payment pattern.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

847

356

Total granted

$267M

$14M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%

+21%

Still filing today

80%

67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 85% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9.3M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesEducationArts & CultureHealthEnvironmentCommunity ImprovementOther

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

DJ
Dr James Cameron Legacy Foundation Inc
5× · 2020–2024 · $11M · revenue +52% · 94% of their budget
THE UWM FOUNDATION INC
5× · 2020–2024 · $8.2M · revenue +5%
MU
Marquette University
5× · 2020–2024 · $5.0M · revenue +24%

Funded once

SF
SEAS FOUNDATION LTDgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $1.7M · revenue ×15
SEAS Foundation, LTD has grown steadily since its 2012 founding as the endowment arm of the Sailing Education Association of Sheboygan, building a durable financial base to support inclusive, community-centered boating education on Lake Michigan.
CM
CATHOLIC MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL OF WAUKESHA INC
one grant, 2022 · $502k
CS
CONGREGATION SHALOM
one grant, 2020 · $415k

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

Activities, outputs, outcomes

Most can say what their work is for. Few can show it changed. Click an area to step through it.

Of 53 organizations, 1 show a change. The rest report what they did, or only what they hope it’s for.

Click an area to read it, and step through its organizations.

Read from 53 of the 454 organizations you fund across these 5 areas— those you fund most heavily — in their own program-service reporting. Achievements are the organizations’ own.

case studies

Two relationships, up close

One you funded repeatedly and one you funded once, each traced through its own filings and the public record.

FESTIVAL CITY SYMPHONY INC

Conviction

Deep conviction in Milwaukee's oldest symphony

Rooted in a Young People's Orchestra founded in 1927, Festival City Symphony is Milwaukee's oldest performing symphony orchestra — and one of the Greater Milwaukee Foundation's most sustained commitments, with five grants totaling $1,014,765 between 2020 and 2024, at times representing 171% of FCS's own budget. Alongside that support, FCS launched the Saturday Classics series at the Bradley Symphony Center and maintained its Pajama Jamborees family programming at the Marcus Performing Arts Center, while consistently providing free or low-cost music education to diverse families across the region. Revenue has grown 13% in aggregate since the first grant, even as a negative revenue CAGR and recurring deficits reflect the real financial pressures the organization is actively navigating.

5× · 2020–2024

Funded

$1.0M

You committed

88%

Peak share of budget

+18%

Their revenue since

THE WISCONSIN FBLA FOUNDATION INC

Funded once · graduated

One early bet, durable student impact

Greater Milwaukee Foundation made a single $50,000 grant to Wisconsin FBLA-PBL Foundation in 2020 — a moment when that grant represented 153% of the organization's budget — and the trajectory since speaks for itself: revenue has grown 33% and at a 7% CAGR, with net assets expanding 1.3x. Today the Foundation awards needs-based conference grants, start-up support for new chapters, results-based grants tied to the National FBLA Outstanding Chapter Program, and funding for the annual State Leadership Conference, channeling resources directly to Wisconsin students pursuing business and leadership careers.

When you stepped in · 2020

$33k

their revenue

once

Latest filing · 2025

$63k+93%

grown on its own, no further grants

2024 · what they did next

Awarded grants to new and reactivated chapters to assist with initial start-up costs.

projects.propublica.org

Trajectories are each organization’s own subsequent IRS filings; milestones are from the public record, linked to source. Revenue is the organization’s whole income from every source, not a return on these grants: we date what happened after a grant, and do not claim the grant caused it.

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.

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

Nonprofit Center of Milwaukee Inc

To promote interests and effectiveness of the nonprofit sector through strengthening organizational capacity, expanding volunteerism and encouraging collaboration.

—

Uwm Research Foundation Inc

Support research and innovation at the university of wisconsin - milwaukee by providing reserach funding, entrepreneurship support, and by engaging in corporate partnering activities to that end.

Community Improvement

One Wisconsin Now Inc

To advance progressive values, ideas and policies through research, policy, networking, advocacy and public education.

—

The Uwm Real Estate Foundation Inc

To partner with the public and private sectors to develop and hold real estate for the benefit of the university of wisconsin-milwaukee. the uwm real estate foundation, inc. holdings may include any properties that advance the mission of…

Housing & Shelter

Milwaukee Bar Association Inc

The mission of the milwaukee bar association is to be an inclusive, equitable and diverse organization that serves the interests of the lawyers, judges and the people of milwaukee county by working to promote the professional interests of…

—

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

Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing & Productivity

The wcmp will grow and nurture the mep's impact in the state of wisconsin by engaging and aligning the best possible resources to help small and medium-sized manufacturers reach their potential.

Education

Milwaukee Development Corporation

-instigate, implement, participate in and promote such activities as shall, in the judgment of mdc, tend to support the general community interest in a strong, vital, aesthetically exciting and economically viable greater milwaukee…

Community Improvement

Wisconsin School Counselor Association Inc

Our vision is for wisconsin to be the model for excellence in equitable school counseling practice, exemplified by the advocacy, leadership, and expertise of the members of the wsca.

—

Wisconsin Medical Society Inc

To improve the health of the people of wisconsin by supporting and strengthening physicians' ability to practice high quality patient care in a changing environment.

—

Midwest Dairy Association

Midwest dairy works with others to give consumers an excellent dairy experience increasing sales, fostering innovation, and inspiring consumer confidence of dairy products and practices.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jewish Family Services Inc and the most unlike its peers is Physicians for Palestine. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 3% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% lost their exemption, against 9% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

1%18/1,394

the rest of the field

3,006/35,132

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.

05the grantee network

1085 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 1085 of the 1,395 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.

109

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

293

Early backer (in before they grew)

1052/1085

Grantees still filing

747/1085

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$95,646,222Education$31,240,391Arts & Culture$30,452,231Philanthropy$25,690,863Human Services$17,168,994Environment$12,406,453Health$11,505,294

Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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.

69 internal · 8 shared anchors

Your portfolio is already a network

SEAS Foundation receives and administers funds to support Sailing Education Association of Sheboygan Inc and its sailing education mission. It’s one of 69 direct ties among 99 of your grantees, who also cluster around 8 shared regional anchors.

Ties are read from news and organization websites, so they’re directional, not exhaustive; each links to its source.

Grantees connected

Grantee↔grantee ties

Shared anchors (2+ grantees)

126

External links

Tap any organization to trace its collaborations — shared anchors pull toward the center

min. connectionstheme39 shown · 20 ties

grantee you fund external partner named by both stated inferred

Tap any organization in the graph to trace its collaborations — or start with the strongest ties below.

Strongest grantee↔grantee ties

↔
explicit Fiscal sponsorship
↔
explicit Funding
↔
explicit Funding
↔
explicit Coalition
↔
explicit Joint program

Anchors several grantees share

2 grantees
2 grantees
2 grantees
2 grantees
2 grantees
2 grantees

Joint program 127Coalition 24Affiliation 22Funding 8Shared facility 7Fiscal sponsorship 4Collaboration 1Referral network 1Merger / affiliation 1

Partnerships are LLM-extracted from news and organisation websites, not from tax filings — directional, not exhaustive. Each edge links to its source; corroborated edges were named independently by both organisations.

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.

United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County IncWI235.3× affinity269 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Evan & Marion Helfaer Foundation · Ralph Evinrude Foundation Inc · Youth Foundation Inc · Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc · Waukesha County Community Foundation · Anon Charitable Trust · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Bert L and Patricia S Steigleder Charitable · Gardner Foundation · Richard and Ethel Herzfeld 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 Greater Milwaukee Foundation 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

2get no government money at all

66report 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, 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 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