How much did Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc grant in FY2024?

Education$12MHuman Services$8.9MHousing & Shelter$8.8MCommunity Improvement$3.7MPhilanthropy$3.5MHealth$3.2MArts & Culture$1.6MYouth Development$1.5MCrime & Legal$1.4MOther$29M

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

partner zniexpansionnon-partisan votermilwaukee urbanstageengagement activitieslead zni

2020

homebuyer counselingcommercial corridorcovidwindwardclarke squarelindsay heightspartnership

2021

park bridgesholy trinitytrinity episcopalindividual financialfinancial goalshousing solutionsmetcalfe park

2022

coviddiabetessoccerinternationalheartanimalronald mcdonald

2023

health wellnessgives backparks greengreen spaceproperty improvementteton valleyvets

2024

gratitudeholiday givingncrc conferencegrowthdodge parkssafetyneighbors cdc

2025

gratitudeholiday givingcdabridgeneighbors cdccorporation wwbiceconomic ueda

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 284 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k150 grants · $564k
$10k–50k58 grants · $1.4M
$50k–250k67 grants · $5.7M
$250k+9 grants · $7.6M

$7,500

Median grant

States reached

$396M

Total assets

Largest grants

UWM Foundation$3,500,000
The Bridge Project$1,012,500
Castle Medical Center dba Adventist Health Castle$1,000,000
UWM Foundation Inc$500,000
Revitalize Milwaukee$400,000
VIA CDC$347,500
Walnut Way Conservation Corp$324,000
Revitalize Milwaukee$300,000
PEARLS for Teen Girls$250,000
LISC Milwaukee$216,000
Northwest Side Community Development Corporation$200,000
Sojourner Family Peace Center$181,280
The Leaders Trust$165,000
Journey House$162,500
Wisconsin Women's Business Initiative Corporation$150,000

02The need

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 (FY18–24, $8.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16% — the area typically sits at 10%. 81% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

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 line in 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$68M · 225 repeat orgs$5.8M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +45% since the first grant, against +43% for the ones you funded once.

225 repeat relationships — 128 still active in FY2024, 97 since wound down; 41 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

225

205

Total granted

$68M

$4.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%

+43%

Still filing today

63%

51%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.4M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesHealthArts & CultureEducationHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyOther

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

Revitalize Milwaukee Inc
7× · 2018–2024 · $2.8M · revenue +93% · 36% of their budget
UO
University of Wisconsin Foundation
3× · 2018–2023 · $2.6M · revenue +3%
Walnut Way Conservation Corporation Inc
7× · 2018–2024 · $2.5M · revenue +83% · 26% of their budget

Funded once

UW
United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha
one grant, 2019 · $502k
WW
Walnut Way
one grant, 2018 · $455k
WW
Walnut Way Conservation Corp - IWC Phase II
one grant, 2018 · $250k

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.

Milwaukee Development Corporation

Regional economic development

Community Improvement

Employ Milwaukee Inc

Build a strong workforce development system to ensure a skilled and productive workforce.

Employment

Habitat for Humanity of Waukesha County

Construction of homes and provide financial opportunity to low income families to own them.

—

Waimanalo Health Center

Waimanalo health center is committed to providing the highest level of primary and preventive health services, with special attention to the needs of native hawaiians and the medically underserved, and improving the health and wellness of…

Health

Milwaukee Community Service Corps Inc

The milwaukee community service corps (mcsc) is a non-profit vocational training organization providing employment, education and life skills to training youth adults and unemployed and underemployed of milwaukee, wisconsin.

Employment

Hui Malama Ola Na Oiwi

Hui malama ola na 'oiwi is a community-based native hawaiian health care system whose mission is to improve the provision of comprehensive disease prevention, health promotion, and primary care services on hawaii island.

—

Disability Rights Wisconsin Inc

Legal protection and advocacy to protect the rights of people with disabilities in wisconsin.

—

Hawaii Island Community

Hawaii island community development corporation was established on july 7, 1986, to provide families with low and moderate income with adequate housing and to acquire, construct and provide housing related activities.

Housing & Shelter

Uwm Research Foundation Inc

Support research and innovation at the university of wisconsin - milwaukee by providing funding for scholarships and grants and by engaging in corporate partnering activities to that end.

Community Improvement

Milwaukee Parks Foundation Inc

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

Environment

Wisconsin Manufacturing Extension

To provide targeted consulting services to small and medium manufacturers within our service territory in wisconsin.

Education

Mutual Housing Association of Hawaii

To develop, own and manage multi-family rental communities serving families earning 20 to 80 percent of median income.

Housing & Shelter

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Programs Hawaii and the most unlike its peers is Convoy of Hope. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.

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) — 5% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.7% lost their exemption, against 7% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.7%2/302

the rest of the field

2,639/36,224

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.

05the grantee network

282 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

103

Early backer (in before they grew)

271/282

Grantees still filing

216/282

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$33,695,624Education$11,714,765Human Services$8,860,246Housing & Shelter$8,790,340Community Improvement$3,719,041Philanthropy$3,466,537Health$3,205,500

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.

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.

Greater Milwaukee Foundation IncWI151.5× affinity121 shared granteesties to 10 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Ralph Evinrude Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Evan & Marion Helfaer Foundation · Aloha United Way Inc · Brewers Community Foundation Inc · The Ros Foundation · Weiss Family Foundation · Youth Foundation Inc · Anon Charitable Trust

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 organisation Joseph and Vera Zilber Family 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

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

5get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: Milwaukee Community Land Trust Ltd.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~25 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 4 filed years.

Track record & reputation

medium risk

4 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 3.7× since.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 813276401 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on Milwaukee Community Land Trust Ltd, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 25 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 95% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

282 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc?

More from the funding graph

Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

282 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc?

More from the funding graph