Skip to content

· 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 it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

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

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

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
GIGIS PLAYHOUSE MADISON$100,000
UNIVERSITY OF WI FOUNDATION$100,000
SANIBEL CAPTIVE CONSERVATION FOUNDA$100,000
MEQUON NATURE PRESERVE$60,000
ICE AGE TRAIL ALLIANCE$55,000
SOUTHER WI BIRD ALLIANCE$50,000
DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY$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

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 (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. Its 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
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.
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 6% of Jenni & Kyle Foundation Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

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

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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

-8%
+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
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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $748k · revenue -8%
  • DING DARLING WILDLIFE SOCIETY INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $360k · revenue -32%
  • SC
    SANIBEL-CAPTIVA CONSERVATION FOUNDA
    3× · 2021–2024 · $258k

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
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
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Southern Wisconsin Bird Alliance Inc; 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 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. 12 of the 25 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
4/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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
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 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 ↗

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.

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

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 Jenni & Kyle Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jenni & Kyle 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%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, 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.

    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 25 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 Jenni & Kyle’s filings →

    More from the funding graph