Skip to content
Madison Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Madison Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$30k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$18k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
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.

Public Benefit$122kEnvironment$43kArts & Culture$28kHuman Services$20kAnimals$14kEducation$7kRecreation & Sports$6kHealth$4kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $12k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $18k
$3,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$410k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF MADISON$18,000
ALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CTR$5,000
MADISON YOUTH CHOIRS$3,000
COMMUNITY SUPPORT NETWORK INC$2,000
OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOC$2,000
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 (FY17–25, $39k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%THE GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER: $10k → 10%THE GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER: $5k → 10%THE GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER: $5k → 10%OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOC: $6k → 10%OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOC: $2k → 10%OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOC: $2k → 10%OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOC: $2k → 10%LUSSIER COMMUNITY ED CTR: $4k → 10%LUSSIER COMMUNITY ED CTR: $3k → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$236k · 8 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
4

Total granted

$236k
$11k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+103%
+134%

Still filing today

75%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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 ServicesEmploymentEnvironmentOther
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

  • AL
    ALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $43k · revenue +196%
  • MY
    MADISON YOUTH CHOIRS INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $24k · revenue +448%
  • IA
    IRWIN A AND ROBERT D GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER INC
    4× · 2018–2021 · $20k · revenue +103%

Funded once

  • OF
    OPERATION FRESH START INCgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $3k · revenue +134%
  • ES
    EAST SIDE ALANO CLUB OF WISCONSIN
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
  • WG
    WEST GREEN CLUB
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
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
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
2
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
3
Wisconsin Youth Company Inc

Wisconsin youth company's mission is to engage youth in opportunities to encourage them to be their best selves.

—
4
Wisconsin School Counselor Association Inc

Our vision is for wisconsin to be the model for excellence in equitable school counseling practice, exemplified by the advocacy, leadership, and expertise of the members of the wsca.

—
5
Wil-Mar Neighborhood Center Inc

Wil-mar neighborhood center is a community-directed, non-profit organization based in the williamson-marquette neighborhood concentrating on enhancing the quality of life by fostering community building and partnerships; supporting life…

Human Services
6
Lakeside Curative Services Inc

Provide training and community engagement for youth and individuals with varying abilities to enhance their self-esteem and quality of life.

Health
7
Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program Inc

Our mission at northwest cep is to create connections that will empower individuals and groups to drive workforce and community growth.

Employment
8
Monroe Street Arts Center

Monroe street arts center engages a community of learners in exploring the arts and developing the creative self

Arts & Culture
9
Winona County Development Achievement Center Inc

Provide training and habilitation services for developmentally disabled adults.

Employment
10
Disability Rights Wisconsin Inc

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

—
11
Innovative Services Inc

Innovative services, inc. (isi) cares for those with disabilities, helping them lead fulfilling lives with maximum independence. innovative's vision is to be the most trusted care provider for people with disabilities in wisconsin.

Human Services
12
Children's Community School Inc

Our mission is to provide a nurturing and challenging montessori preschool environment for children ages 18 months to 6 years old in which children explore the world and their place in it through hands-on learning experiences and positive…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Irwin a and Robert D Goodman Community Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Wisconsin Academy for Graduate Service Dogs Inc. 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

8 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. 8 of the 12 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CITY OF MADISON PARKS DIVISION: $121,500 · OtherCITY OF MADISON PARKS DIVISIONMADISON YOUTH CHOIRS INC: $24,000 · OtherMADISON YOUTH CHOIRS INC+4 more: $12,000 · Other+4 moreALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC: $43,000 · EnvironmentALDO LEOPOLD NATURE…IRWIN A AND ROBERT D GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $20,000 · Human ServicesIRWIN A AND ROBER…OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOCIATION: $12,000 · Human ServicesOCCUPAWS GUIDE DO…LUSSIER COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER INC: $7,000 · Human ServicesLUSSIER COMMUNITY…COMMUNITY SUPPORT NETWORK INC: $4,000 · EmploymentOPERATION FRESH START INC: $3,000 · Employment
Other$157,500Environment$43,000Human Services$39,000Employment$7,000

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 budgetALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC: $43,000 over 9y, 0.4% of budgetMADISON YOUTH CHOIRS INC: $24,000 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetIRWIN A AND ROBERT D GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER INC: $20,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetOCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOCIATION: $12,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetLUSSIER COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER INC: $7,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetCOMMUNITY SUPPORT NETWORK INC: $4,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetOPERATION FRESH START INC: $3,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWISCONSIN ACADEMY FOR GRADUATE SERVICE DOGS INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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 ALDO LEOPOLD NATURE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MADISON YOUTH CHOIRS INC ↗
  • Who funds IRWIN A AND ROBERT D GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds LUSSIER COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY SUPPORT NETWORK INC ↗
  • Who funds OPERATION FRESH START INC ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN ACADEMY FOR GRADUATE SERVICE DOGS 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.

Madison Gas and Elect…Madison Community Fou…Alliant Energy Founda…Sub-Zero Group Founda…Endres Manufacturing …The Evjue Foundation …United Way of Dane Co…Green Bay Packers Fou…Jennie H Olson Charit…Pleasant T Rowland Fo…First Business Charit…The Blackbaud Giving …
Madison Gas and Electric Foundation IncWI24.1× 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 · Madison Community Foundation · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Sub-Zero Group Foundation Inc · Endres Manufacturing Foundation Inc · The Evjue Foundation Inc · United Way of Dane County Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Jennie H Olson Charitable Foundation · Pleasant T Rowland Foundation Inc · First Business Charitable Foundation Inc · The Blackbaud Giving Fund

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 Madison Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Madison Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 12 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 Madison’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home