· Private foundation
Hallberg Family Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
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 $10k37 grants · $90k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $137k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $270k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CSF SCHOLARSHIP FUND | $70,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| HALLBERG INC | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $50,000 |
| CITY OF FOREST LAKE | $50,000 |
| CROSSROADS CHURCH | $36,000 |
| FOREST LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 831 | $27,025 |
| LINWOOD COVENANT CHURCH | $19,000 |
| WYOMING CREATIVE ARTS | $12,500 |
| TEFLA | $12,500 |
| CHISAGO-LINDSTROM LAKES ASSOCIATION | $10,000 |
| LAKE CENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES | $10,000 |
| ELIM LUTHERAN CHURCH | $10,000 |
| FOREST LAKE LAKE ASSOCIATION | $9,375 |
| ORDWAY ARTS CENTER | $7,500 |
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 (FY18–25, $17k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 34% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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.
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.
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 +63% since the first grant, against -3% for the ones you funded once.
64 repeat relationships — 38 still active in FY2025, 26 since wound down; 12 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, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $174k 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
- CSCOMMUNITY SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION3× · 2023–2025 · $101k · revenue +20%
- LCLAKES CENTER FOR YOUTH & FAMILIES7× · 2018–2025 · $51k · revenue +63%
- FLFOREST LAKE LAKE ASSOCIATION6× · 2019–2025 · $41k · revenue +191%
Funded once
- COCITY OF WYOMING PARKSone grant, 2023 · $35k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $13k
- FAFIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIESone grant, 2018 · $5k
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.
We champion the health needs of children and families. we are committed to improving children's health by providing the highest-quality, family centered care, advanced through research and education.
The mission of wellshare international is to advance sustainable community health around the world. wellshare international focuses its resources where it can have the greatest impact on the health of underserved and vulnerable…
Through shelter and housing, advocacy and supportive services, our mission is to prevent and end homelessness in our community.
Strengthening lives, families, and communities through our cornerstone values.
The mission of central minnesota legal services is to advocate for access to the civil justice system for low income people by providing high quality legal services and to improve the lives of people living in poverty by empowering…
We heal people, promote health and strengthen communities.
(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.
The museum's mission statement is "turn on the science: inspire learning. inform policy. improve lives."
We are dedicated to providing exceptional care to every patient, every time.
We educate women to lead and influence. we educate at all degree levels through valuing and integrating the liberal arts and professional education within the catholic intellectual tradition, see schedule oemphasizing scholarly inquiry and…
Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o
University of minnesota physicians serves as the integrated group practice for the university of minnesota medical school full-time faculty to provide the highest quality healthcare to patients and their families.university of minnesota…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Angel Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Muske Company Community Support Foundation. 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.
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 48 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
27 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. 27 of the 108 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 COMMUNITY SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds LAKES CENTER FOR YOUTH & FAMILIES ↗
- Who funds FOREST LAKE LAKE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds ROTARY CLUB OF FOREST LAKE ↗
- Who funds American Legion ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S PERFORMING ARTS ↗
- Who funds MUSKE COMPANY COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SHELTERBOX USA 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: The Graco Foundation · Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation · Fred C and Katherine B Andersen Foundation · Xcel Energy Foundation · The Minneapolis Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · Connexus Energy Foundation · Hugh J Andersen Foundation · Hardenbergh Foundation · Edina Realty Foundation · Pohlad Family Foundation · Midcontinent Foundation
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 Hallberg Family 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.
- Shriners Hospitals for Children — 0% of income from government
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.