Skip to content

· Private foundation

Jane and Tad Shepard Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$70k
Granted FY2025still arriving
9
Grants FY2025still arriving
7
States reached
$9k
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 2025.

Youth Development$192kPhilanthropy$143kFood & Nutrition$117kHuman Services$82kEducation$79kEmployment$64kHealth$43kCommunity Improvement$23k
02FY2025 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$8,750
Median grant
7
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MAMIE'S POPPY PLATES$8,750
TEENS INC$8,750
ACTIVE CHILDREN EXCEL PROJECT INC$8,750
FUTURE URBAN LEADERS$8,750
IMAGINE A DAY INC$8,750
HOPEKIDS MINNESOTA$8,750
WAYSIDE FOOD PROGRAMS$8,750
THE GROVE PROJECT$5,000
GOOD GRIEF$3,750
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 (FY17–23, $74k) land where the poverty rate runs at 4%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%AMERICA'S GROW A ROW: $15k → 4%AMERICA'S GROW A ROW: $15k → 4%AMERICA'S GROW A ROW: $15k → 4%AMERICA'S GROW A ROW: $12k → 4%AMERICA'S GROW A ROW: $10k → 4%AMERICA'S GROW A ROW: $8k → 4%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

ME
MN
IL
WI
NJ
CT
CO
AR
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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$648k · 15 repeat orgs$68k to everyone else

15 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
6

Total granted

$648k
$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+35%
+311%

Still filing today

47%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k 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
Human ServicesYouth DevelopmentHealthCrime & LegalPhilanthropyEducationOther
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

  • Future Urban Leaders
    8× · 2018–2025 · $92k · revenue +287%
  • Americas Grow-A-Row
    6× · 2017–2023 · $74k · revenue +205%
  • MP
    MAMIE'S POPPY PLATES
    7× · 2019–2025 · $67k · revenue +35%

Funded once

  • NC
    NONPROFIT CENTER OF MILWAUKEE INC
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
  • GL
    GIRLS LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2017 · $12k
  • RC
    REACH COUNSELING SERVICES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +99%
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
Goodwill Industries of Northern Il and Wi Stateline Area Inc

The mission of goodwill is to create opportunities for individuals with barriers to enhance their lives. barriers include physical or mental disabilities, lack of education and job preparation, socio-economic disadvantages, and others.…

—
2
NourishMKE Inc

We're a network of community food centers that specializes in food, love, and community. Hunger is a real problem, and access to food should be a fundamental right. No one should be made to feel they're not deserving of nourishment when…

Food & Nutrition
3
Groundwork Milwaukee Inc

Bring about the sustained regeneration, improvement, and management of the physical environment by developing community-based partnerships that empower people, businesses, and organizations to promote environmental, economic, and social…

Environment
4
Violence Free Minnesota

To represent victim/survivors of relationship abuse and member programs; challenge systems and institutions; promote social change; and support, educate, and connect member programs.

—
5
Partners with Families and Children Spokane

Our mission is to prevent, interrupt and repair cycles of abuse and neglect within families.Our vision is safe children, healthy families, thriving communities.

Crime & Legal
6
Westbrook Youth and Family Services Inc

To support and strengthen the youth and families of westbrook, ct through coordinating and providing a comprehensive delivery system of prevention, intervention, treatment, and follow up services

Human Services
7
Childs Place

The mission of Childs Place is to listen to children in a safe developmentally sensitive and legally sound manner; to unite professionals in a coordinated response to child abuse; to guide children and families toward healing through…

Human Services
8
East Side Business Improvement Dist

Building a coalition to create Milwaukee most dynamic neighborhood.

Community Improvement
9
Pathways of Wisconsin Inc

Pathways of wisconsin provides supported employment opportunities and empowerment through quality, person-centered programming for individuals of all abilities.

Human Services
10
United Way of Greater New Bedford Inc

Our mission is to mobilize people, partnerships and resources to catalyze change that strengthens the communities served.

—
11
Goodwill Industries of North Central Wisconsin Inc

Eliminating barriers to employment by providing pathways for those who are underserved, underrepresented and disadvantaged who have a goal of building skills that lead to sustained employment and improved financial stability.

Human Services
12
New Bedford Women's Center Inc

To empower and support positive choices for all and to educate and take action in the community for the prevention of oppression and violence.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Jersey Battered Women's Service Inc; the most unlike its peers is Mamie's Poppy Plates. 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

14 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. 14 of the 23 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)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/14
Grantees still filing
10/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOPEKIDS MINNESOTA: $69,000 · OtherHOPEKIDS MINNESOTABREAKING BARRIERS WEWORK SHOREDITCH: $64,000 · OtherBREAKING BARRIERS WEWORK SHOREDITCHACTIVE CHILDREN EXCEL PROJECT INC: $61,500 · OtherACTIVE CHILDREN EXCEL PROJECT INCIMAGINE A DAY INC: $35,000 · OtherIMAGINE A DAY INCTRI-COUNTY DENTAL CLINIC: $28,000 · OtherTRI-COUNTY DENTAL CLINICBest Friends of Neenah-Menasha In: $18,500 · OtherBest Friends of Neenah-Menasha InGROVE PROJECT INC: $16,250 · OtherHARBOR HOUSE DOMESTIC ABUSE: $15,000 · OtherNONPROFIT CENTER OF MILWAUKEE INC: $15,000 · OtherGIRLS LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE: $11,600 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherAmericas Grow-A-Row: $74,000 · Human ServicesAmericas Grow-A-…JERSEY BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICE INC: $19,000 · Human ServicesJERSEY BATTERED …CHRISTINE ANN DOMESTIC ABUSE SERVICES INC: $15,000 · Human ServicesCHRISTINE ANN DO…Future Urban Leaders: $91,500 · Youth DevelopmentFuture Urban Le…TEENS INC: $8,750 · Youth DevelopmentTEENS INCMAMIE'S POPPY PLATES: $66,500 · PhilanthropyMAMIE'S POPPY…FAIRFIELD COUNTY'S COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 · PhilanthropyFAIRFIELD COU…Wayside Food Programs: $42,500 · Food & NutritionGOOD GRIEF INC: $32,500 · HealthBEAMING INC: $5,000 · HealthREACH COUNSELING SERVICES INC: $10,000 · Crime & LegalWOMEN'S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $7,500 · Education
Other$343,850Human Services$108,000Youth Development$100,250Philanthropy$91,500Food & Nutrition$42,500Health$37,500Crime & Legal$10,000Education$7,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFuture Urban Leaders: $91,500 over 8y, 13% of budgetAmericas Grow-A-Row: $74,000 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetMAMIE'S POPPY PLATES: $66,500 over 7y, 6.9% of budgetWayside Food Programs: $42,500 over 5y, 1.1% of budgetGOOD GRIEF INC: $32,500 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetFAIRFIELD COUNTY'S COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetJERSEY BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICE INC: $19,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBest Friends of Neenah-Menasha In: $18,500 over 3y, 2.8% of budgetCHRISTINE ANN DOMESTIC ABUSE SERVICES INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetNONPROFIT CENTER OF MILWAUKEE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetREACH COUNSELING SERVICES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTEENS INC: $8,750 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN'S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $7,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBEAMING INC: $5,000 over 1y, 4.7% 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 Future Urban Leaders ↗
  • Who funds Americas Grow-A-Row ↗
  • Who funds MAMIE'S POPPY PLATES ↗
  • Who funds Wayside Food Programs ↗
  • Who funds GOOD GRIEF INC ↗
  • Who funds FAIRFIELD COUNTY'S COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds JERSEY BATTERED WOMEN'S SERVICE INC ↗
  • Who funds Best Friends of Neenah-Menasha In ↗
  • Who funds CHRISTINE ANN DOMESTIC ABUSE SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds NONPROFIT CENTER OF MILWAUKEE INC ↗
  • Who funds REACH COUNSELING SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds TEENS INC ↗
  • Who funds WOMEN'S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds BEAMING 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

J J Keller Foundation IncWI17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: J J Keller Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · United Way Fox Cities Inc · Oshkosh Area Community Foundation Corporation · Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Jane and Tad Shepard Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jane and Tad Shepard Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →median 40%
  • Jersey Battered Women's Service Inc: 40% of income from government
  • Women's Business Development Council Inc: 39% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
1get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
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 Jane and Tad Shepard Family Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Jane and Tad Shepard Family 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 23 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 Jane and Tad Shepard Family’s filings →

More from the funding graph