Skip to content
Plinth

· Private foundation

Jenni & Kyle Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.2M
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$500k
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 FY20212025.

Education$839kEnvironment$771kAnimals$560kRecreation & Sports$330kArts & Culture$148kYouth Development$120kHealth$3k
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $13k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $128k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $515k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$50,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$19M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF WI FOUNDATION$500,000
SANIBEL CAPTIVE CONSERVATION FOUNDA$100,000
UNIVERSITY OF WI FOUNDATION$100,000
GIGIS PLAYHOUSE MADISON$100,000
MEQUON NATURE PRESERVE$60,000
ICE AGE TRAIL ALLIANCE$55,000
DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY$50,000
SOUTHER WI BIRD ALLIANCE$50,000
BAILEY-MATTHEWS NATIONAL SHELL MUSE$40,000
MADISON PARKS FOUNDATION$30,000
OLBRICH BOTANICAL SOCIETY$25,500
FOUNDATION FOR DANE COUNTY PARKS$20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WI FOUNDATION$12,000
ARTS FOR ALL WISCONSIN$7,500
MARC INC$5,000
02The need
03

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 (FY25–25, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%FOUNDATION FOR DANE COUNTY PARKS: $20k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
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.

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.

04

Where the work is directed

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

About 6% of Jenni & Kyle Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.

Jenni & Kyle Foundation Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address

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 foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge
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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$2.3M · 12 repeat orgs$441k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships — 8 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
7

Total granted

$2.3M
$164k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-7%
+340%

Still filing today

67%
29%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $278k went to new ones.

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

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

’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationAnimalsPublic BenefitPhilanthropyHuman ServicesOther

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

  • MP
    MADISON PARKS FOUNDATION INC
    2× · 2022–2025 · $140k · revenue +42%
  • SW
    SOUTHERN WISCONSIN BIRD ALLIANCE INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $30k · revenue +372%
  • IT
    IT TAKES A VILLAGE CHICAGO INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $20k · revenue +36%

Funded once

  • RL
    RESTORING LANDS INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +340%
  • BB
    BADGERLAND BIRD ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2023 · $40k
  • SW
    SOUTHERN WI BIRD ALLIANCE
    one grant, 2024 · $40k

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

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.

1
Natural Resources Foundation of

To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.

2
Milwaukee Audubon Society Inc

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

Environment
3
Friends of Wisconsin State Parks Inc

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

Recreation & Sports
4
Friends of Schlitz Audubon Nature Center Inc

Schlitz audubon nature center conserves our land's diverse habitats on lake michigan and provides meaningful experiences and environmental education for all.

Environment
5
Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association Incorporated

The mission of the wisconsin woodland owners association is to conserve and enhance the private woodlands of the state through the following actions: sustainably manage our woodlands with informed management plans that utilize best…

Environment
6
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
7
Dane County Conservation League

Conserve now, that the future may live!

8
Wisconsin Park and Recreation Association Incorporated

To empower and support wpra members by fostering professional growth, advocating for the parks and recreation profession, and enhancing the quality of life for communities across wisconsin through education, networking, and leadership…

9
Wisconsin Wetlands Association Inc

Wisconsin Wetlands Association is dedicated to the protection, restoration, and enjoyment of wetlands and associated ecosystems through science-based programs, education, and advocacy.

Environment
10
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
11
Michigan Audubon Society

To foster and promote appreciation and understanding of the natural world by educational, scientific, investigative, literary, philanthropic and charitable pursuits. michigan audubon connects birds and people for the benefit of both…

Environment
12
Milwaukee Parks Foundation Inc

Engage our community in supporting milwaukee county parks to collectively steward a thriving park system.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southern Wisconsin Bird Alliance Inc and the most unlike its peers is It Takes a Village Chicago 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

12 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 25 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
5/12
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

SANIBEL-CAPTIVA CONSERVATION FOUNDA — $258,000 · OtherSANIBEL-CAPTIVA CONSERVATION FOUNDAICE AGE TRAIL ALLIANCE INC — $155,000 · OtherICE AGE TRAIL ALLIANCE INCDANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES — $140,000 · OtherDANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICESMARC INC — $105,000 · OtherMARC INCSANIBEL CAPTIVE CONSERVATION FOUNDA — $100,000 · OtherSANIBEL CAPTIVE CONSERVATION FOUNDAGIGIS PLAYHOUSE — $100,000 · OtherGIGIS PLAYHOUSEBAILEY-MATTHEWS NATIONAL SHELL MUSE — $70,000 · OtherBAILEY-MATTHEWS NATIONAL SHELL MUSESOUTHER WI BIRD ALLIANCE — $50,000 · OtherBADGERLAND BIRD ALLIANCE — $40,000 · OtherSOUTHERN WI BIRD ALLIANCE — $40,000 · Other+5 more — $33,700 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION — $748,025 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDA…Mequon Nature Preserve Inc — $230,000 · EnvironmentMequon Nature P…OLBRICH BOTANICAL SOCIETY INC — $72,500 · EnvironmentOLBRICH BOTANIC…RESTORING LANDS INC — $50,000 · EnvironmentRESTORING LANDS…SOUTHERN WISCONSIN BIRD ALLIANCE INC — $30,000 · EnvironmentSOUTHERN WISCON…DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC — $359,500 · AnimalsDING DARLING W…MADISON PARKS FOUNDATION INC — $140,000 · Public BenefitFOUNDATION FOR DANE COUNTY PARKS INC — $20,000 · Human ServicesIT TAKES A VILLAGE CHICAGO INC — $20,000 · PhilanthropyArts for All Wisconsin Inc — $7,500 · Arts & Culture
Other$1,091,700Education$748,025Environment$382,500Animals$359,500Public Benefit$140,000Human Services$20,000Philanthropy$20,000Arts & Culture$7,500

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION — $748,025 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetDING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC — $359,500 over 5y, 3.5% of budgetMequon Nature Preserve Inc — $230,000 over 4y, 8.9% of budgetICE AGE TRAIL ALLIANCE INC — $155,000 over 2y, 1.8% of budgetMADISON PARKS FOUNDATION INC — $140,000 over 2y, 12% of budgetOLBRICH BOTANICAL SOCIETY INC — $72,500 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetRESTORING LANDS INC — $50,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetSOUTHERN WISCONSIN BIRD ALLIANCE INC — $30,000 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetIT TAKES A VILLAGE CHICAGO INC — $20,000 over 2y, 6.6% of budgetArts for All Wisconsin Inc — $7,500 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE WAISMAN CENTER — $2,500 over 1y, 2.5% of budget
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 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
  • Who funds DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC
  • Who funds Mequon Nature Preserve Inc
  • Who funds ICE AGE TRAIL ALLIANCE INC
  • Who funds MADISON PARKS FOUNDATION INC
  • Who funds OLBRICH BOTANICAL SOCIETY INC
  • Who funds RESTORING LANDS INC
  • Who funds SOUTHERN WISCONSIN BIRD ALLIANCE INC
  • Who funds FOUNDATION FOR DANE COUNTY PARKS INC
  • Who funds IT TAKES A VILLAGE CHICAGO INC
  • Who funds Arts for All Wisconsin Inc
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WAISMAN CENTER

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.

Madison Gas and Electric Foundation IncWI24× affinity9 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Madison Gas and Electric Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Madison Community Foundation · Endres Manufacturing Foundation Inc · United Way of Dane County Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Veridian Foundation Inc · The Evjue Foundation Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace 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 Jenni & Kyle Foundation Inc 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
202122232425
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%your share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get 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 · 0–15%
    typical government reliance, FY2025

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 25 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph