Skip to content
James E Dutton Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

James E Dutton Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$184k
Granted FY2025still arriving
35
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$13k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$467kAnimals$302kRecreation & Sports$44kEducation$38kYouth Development$29kArts & Culture$13kHuman Services$7kFood & Nutrition$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 35 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k29 grants · $122k
  • $10k–50k6 grants · $63k
$4,900
Median grant
4
States reached
$2.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Pineview Wildlife Rehabilitation Center$12,500
Urban Ecology Center$10,000
Driftless Area Land Conservancy Inc$10,000
Friends of the Cedarburg Bog Inc$10,000
Raptor Education Group Inc$10,000
Wisconsin Humane Society$10,000
Rock River Coalition$8,778
Carroll University$7,500
Lake Michigan Bird Observatory$7,068
Friends of Wisconsin Camp Tapawingo$7,000
Wisconsin Assn for Environmental Education$6,500
Van der Brohe Arboretum and Bird Sanctuary$6,465
Lakeshore Humane Society$5,000
Adaptive Sportsmen$5,000
American Bird Conservancy$5,000
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 (FY22–25, $13k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 29% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Pawsitive Perspective Assistance Dogs: $5k → 6%Pets Helping People: $4k → 17%Adaptive Community Approach Program: $4k → 5%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
WI
MI
IN
CA
MO
VA
MD
AZ
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.
04

Where the work is directed

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

About 7% of James E Dutton Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 86% of the giving stays in WI; by stated purpose, 82%.

James E Dutton Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 3.0% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
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 funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

39%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$351k · 29 repeat orgs$551k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +8% for those funded once.

29 repeat relationships: 19 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 16 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

29
87

Total granted

$351k
$475k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+8%

Still filing today

86%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 59% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $76k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsEducationHuman ServicesArts & CultureRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • RR
    Rock River Coalition Inc
    3× · 2020–2025 · $28k · revenue +57%
  • GW
    GATHERING WATERS INC
    2× · 2020–2023 · $23k · revenue +47%
  • URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC
    3× · 2022–2025 · $20k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $15k
  • CW
    Central Wisconsin Environmental Station
    one grant, 2022 · $15k
  • DU
    Ducks Unlimited
    one grant, 2021 · $15k
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
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Inc

The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.

Environment
2
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment
3
Milwaukee Audubon Society Inc

Protect and restore Wisconsin's natural heritage and ecology through active leadership, education and stewardship

Environment
4
Humane Animal Welfare Society of Waukesha County Inc

The humane animal welfare society of waukesha county leads the community in animal welfare and assures sanctuary for animals in need.

Animals
5
Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Inc

To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.

Environment
6
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
7
Wisconsin Association of Lakes Inc

The mission of the wisconsin association of lakes is to conserve, enhance, and restore wisconsin's 15,000 lakes to ensure their sustainability for the benefit and collective use and enjoyment for this and future generations.

Environment
8
Friends of Wisconsin State Parks Inc

To preserve, promote, protect, and enhance wisconsin state parks, forests, trails, and recreation areas.

Recreation & Sports
9
Zoological Society of Milwaukee Cty

The mission of the zoological society is to take part in conserving wildlife and endangered species, to educate people about the importance of wildlife and the environment, and to support the milwaukee county zoo.

Animals
10
Missaukee Humane Society

Humane treatement of animals

Animals
11
Washington Wild

Washington wild protects and restores wild lands and waters in washington state through advocacy, education and civic engagement.

Animals
12
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lancova Partners for Pets 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

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

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 89 of the 133 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)
24
Early backer (in before they grew)
89/89
Grantees still filing
58/89
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Rock River Coalition Inc: $27,556 · EnvironmentRock River Coalition IncGATHERING WATERS INC: $22,500 · EnvironmentGATHERING WATERS INCURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC: $20,000 · EnvironmentURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INCDRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $20,000 · EnvironmentDRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INCALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC: $18,500 · EnvironmentALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INCGROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC: $12,000 · EnvironmentRESTORING LANDS INC: $12,000 · Environment+29 more: $176,675 · Environment+29 moreIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherCentral Wisconsin Environmental Station: $15,000 · OtherDucks Unlimited: $15,000 · OtherPHEASANTS FOREVER INC: $13,412 · OtherThe Nature Place: $12,865 · OtherLAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $12,068 · OtherADAPTIVE SPORTSMEN INC: $12,000 · OtherSEWISC - Southeastern Wisconsin Invasive Species Consortium: $10,600 · Other+42 more: $200,725 · Other+42 moreWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $17,500 · AnimalsWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCI…NORTHWOODS HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $14,598 · AnimalsNORTHWOODS HUMANE SOC…PINEVIEW WILDLIFE REHABILITATION CENTER INC: $12,500 · AnimalsPINEVIEW WILDLIFE REH…RAPTOR EDUCATION GROUP INC: $12,500 · AnimalsRAPTOR EDUCATION GROU…OSHKOSH AREA HUMANE SOCIETY: $11,000 · AnimalsOSHKOSH AREA HUMANE S…American Bird Conservancy: $10,000 · AnimalsAmerican Bird Conserv…RUFF START RESCUE INC: $8,000 · AnimalsLINCOLN COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETYINC: $7,500 · AnimalsHUMANE SOCIETY OF SHEBOYGAN COUNTY INC: $7,500 · AnimalsWILD PAWS MIDWEST ANIMAL SANCTUARY: $7,000 · Animals+20 more: $66,032 · Animals+20 moreSonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance: $17,000 · EducationCARROLL UNIVERSITY INC: $15,000 · EducationSUPERIOR RIVERS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC: $9,925 · EducationHOWARD SUAMICO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · EducationIPM INSTITUTE OF NORTH AMERICA INC: $5,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - GREEN BAY FOUNDATION INC: $4,900 · EducationTHE FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT FOUNDATION: $3,900 · EducationFRIENDS OF WISCONSIN CAMP TAPAWINGO CORPORATION: $14,000 · Recreation & SportsACCESS ABILITY WISCONSIN INC: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsPAWSITIVE PERSPECTIVES ASSISTANCE DOGS: $5,000 · Human ServicesOCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOCIATION: $5,000 · Human ServicesADAPTIVE COMMUNITY APPROACH PROGRAM INC: $4,150 · Human ServicesPETS HELPING PEOPLE INC: $3,750 · Human ServicesARTS AT LARGE INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureNORTH LAKELAND DISCOVERY CENTER INC: $5,000 · Arts & CultureBETTY BRINN CHILDREN'S MUSEUM INC: $2,500 · Arts & CultureBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC: $7,200 · Youth Development
Environment$309,231Other$306,670Animals$174,130Education$60,725Recreation & Sports$19,000Human Services$17,900Arts & Culture$12,500Youth Development$7,200

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRock River Coalition Inc: $27,556 over 3y, 5.3% of budgetGATHERING WATERS INC: $22,500 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC: $20,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetDRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC: $18,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $17,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance: $17,000 over 5y, 0.9% of budgetCARROLL UNIVERSITY INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNORTHWOODS HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $14,598 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF WISCONSIN CAMP TAPAWINGO CORPORATION: $14,000 over 2y, 4.9% of budgetPHEASANTS FOREVER INC: $13,412 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRAPTOR EDUCATION GROUP INC: $12,500 over 2y, 2.3% of budgetLAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $12,068 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetGROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC: $12,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetRESTORING LANDS INC: $12,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetOSHKOSH AREA HUMANE SOCIETY: $11,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMequon Nature Preserve Inc: $10,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetLANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetMILWAUKEE RIVERKEEPER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetRIVER REVITALIZATION FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE CEDARBURG BOG INC: $10,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetDOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWOODLAND DUNES NATURE CENTER AND PRESERVE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetSUPERIOR RIVERS WATERSHED ASSOCIATION INC: $9,925 over 1y, 14% of budgetRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC: $9,875 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetSonoma Ecology Center: $9,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetRUFF START RESCUE INC: $8,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetLINCOLN COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETYINC: $7,500 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF SHEBOYGAN COUNTY INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHIGHLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTREES FOR TOMORROW INC: $7,500 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC: $7,200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWILD PAWS MIDWEST ANIMAL SANCTUARY: $7,000 over 1y, 5.9% of budgetWISCONSIN WATERFOWL ASSOCIATION INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTHE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOPEN DOOR BIRD SANCTUARY: $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetFriends of Willow River-Kinnickinnic State Parks: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetMISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetGREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE PRAIRIE ENTHUSIASTs INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetARTS AT LARGE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetPAWSITIVE PERSPECTIVES ASSISTANCE DOGS: $5,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetHUMANE SOCIETY OF WEST MICHIGAN: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHOWARD SUAMICO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetWINGS OVER WISCONSIN INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetACCESS ABILITY WISCONSIN INC: $5,000 over 1y, 2.3% 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.

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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Green Bay Packers Fou…Alliant Energy Founda…Herbert H Kohl Charit…Greater Milwaukee Fou…John C Bock FoundationWisconsin Public Serv…Baird Foundation IncNatural Resources Fou…National Fish and Wil…Madison Gas and Elect…The Brookby FoundationThe American Society …
Green Bay Packers FoundationWI53.3× affinity29 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Green Bay Packers Foundation · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · John C Bock Foundation · Wisconsin Public Service Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Natural Resources Foundation Of · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · Madison Gas and Electric Foundation Inc · The Brookby Foundation · The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

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 James E Dutton Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from James E Dutton Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 2%
  • Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
26report 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
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 James E Dutton Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to James E Dutton 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 133 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on James E Dutton’s filings →

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