· Private foundation
John C Bock Foundation
Its FY2024 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 FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k17 grants · $92k
- $10k–50k11 grants · $160k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| NORTHLAND COLLEGE | $100,000 |
| DOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INC | $40,000 |
| NORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST INC | $20,000 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST | $20,000 |
| THE OZAUKEE WASHINGTON LAND TRUST INC | $10,000 |
| URBAN TREE ALLIANCE LTD | $10,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION OF WISCONSIN INC | $10,000 |
| THE BAIRD CREEK PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC | $10,000 |
| NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC | $10,000 |
| THE NORTHWOODS ALLIANCE INCORPORATED | $10,000 |
| NORTHWOODS LAND TRUST INC | $10,000 |
| GATHERING WATERS INC | $10,000 |
| HUNGER TASK FORCE INC | $8,500 |
| INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC | $7,500 |
| LANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC | $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 (FY18–24, $41k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 88% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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 +58% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.
37 repeat relationships — 26 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k 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
DOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INC8× · 2017–2024 · $213k · revenue +182%- NLNORTHWOODS LAND TRUST INC8× · 2017–2024 · $145k · revenue +82%
- ELENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST8× · 2017–2024 · $130k · revenue +72%
Funded once
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INCgraduatedone grant, 2018 · $15k · revenue +48%- TPTALL PINES CONSERVANCYone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -35%
- WWWEST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST INCone grant, 2017 · $10k
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.
Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.
Protect and restore Wisconsin's natural heritage and ecology through active leadership, education and stewardship
The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.
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.
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…
The natural resource development association supports policies that lead to proper, necessary, and conscientious resource development and conservation. by engaging community leaders, laborers, manufacturers, and job creators in the…
The green lake conservancy permanently and proactively protects and preserves special places, primarily in the green lake watershed and county by oppering conservation expertise, strattegies, and legal tools for the benefits of humans,…
To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.
The mission of heartlands conservancy is to empower and colaborate with the people of southern illinois to advance and protect the health of our distinctive communities and nationally significant natural and cultural resources.
The mission of wild rivers conservancy of the st. croix & namekagon is to inspire stewardship to forever ensure the rare ecological integrity of the st. croix and namekagon riverway. the conservancy of the st. croix and namekagon works…
Wisconsin Wetlands Association is dedicated to the protection, restoration, and enjoyment of wetlands and associated ecosystems through science-based programs, education, and advocacy.
The purpose of the association shall be to restore and conserve wisconsin's waterfowl and wetland resources; to educate state waterfowlers during their progression from natural resource consumer to steward; and to promote governmental…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc and the most unlike its peers is National Audubon Society Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 31 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% 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.
54 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. 54 of the 56 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 NORTHLAND COLLEGE ↗
- Who funds DOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHWOODS LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER OF THE MIDWEST ↗
- Who funds LANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds DRIFTLESS AREA LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds GATHERING WATERS INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION OF ↗
- Who funds BAIRD CREEK PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds TREES FOR TOMORROW INC ↗
- Who funds ALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds ALDO LEOPOLD FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL CRANE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Mequon Nature Preserve Inc ↗
- Who funds HUNGER TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds THE FOREST STEWARDS GUILD ↗
- Who funds NORTHWOODS ALLIANCE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds WILD SKIES RAPTOR CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds GROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF PHEASANT BRANCH CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF BOERNER BOTANICAL GARDENS INC ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE INC ↗
- Who funds RIVER REVITALIZATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds RESTORING LANDS INC ↗
- Who funds WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds BENEDICTINE LIFE FOUNDATION OF WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds GIRL SCOUTS OF WISCONSIN - BADGERLAND COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds OSHKOSH AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ↗
- Who funds MADISON READING PROJECT INC ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN'S GREEN FIRE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds TALL PINES CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds WEST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST 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: James E Dutton Foundation Inc · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Madison Community Foundation · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region Inc · The Nature Conservancy · National Fish and Wildlife Foundation · The Brookby Foundation · Madison Gas and Electric Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc
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 John C Bock 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.
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to John C Bock Foundation?
Find your warmest path to John C Bock Foundation 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.