Skip to content
Mark and Sally Egan Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Mark and Sally Egan 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.

$1.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$1.0M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Education$1.1MHuman Services$98kAnimals$80kEnvironment$66kHealth$60kPublic Safety & Disaster$50kRecreation & Sports$47kCrime & Legal$40kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $20k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.0M
$1,000,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST DOMINIC CONGREGATION$1,000,000
Individual grant recipient$20,000
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 (FY20–24, $68k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 44% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 9%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $20k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $10k → 5%LAKESHORE FOSTER FAMILIES & FRIENDS: $5k → 11%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $5k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $3k → 5%KIDS MATTER: $10k → 17%KIDS MATTER: $10k → 17%KIDS MATTER: $5k → 17%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.

26%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$417k · 18 repeat orgs$1.2M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against +27% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 18 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
19

Total granted

$417k
$146k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+27%

Still filing today

78%
37%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEnvironmentCrime & LegalEducationRecreation & SportsAnimalsOther
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

  • THE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
    4× · 2021–2024 · $55k · revenue +25%
  • SB
    Santa Barbara Bucket Brigade
    4× · 2020–2024 · $50k · revenue +119%
  • MT
    MONTECITO TRAILS FOUNDATION
    5× · 2020–2024 · $42k · revenue +70%

Funded once

  • C
    CMTA
    one grant, 2024 · $25k
  • CW
    CHILDREN'S WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • SS
    SCHOOL SISTERS OF NOTRE DAME
    one grant, 2021 · $10k
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
Fund for Lake Michigan Inc

Lake Michigan is one of Wisconsin's greatest assets, and its water is critical to the state's future. The Fund for Lake Michigan is here to help sustain the Lake on behalf of the people and places that depend on it. Our goal is to have a…

Environment
2
Wisconsin Policy Forum Inc

We conduct impartial public policy research and analysis to drive informed debate and effective decision-making in the state of wisconsin.

Public Benefit
3
Wisconsin Association of Lakes Inc

The mission of the wisconsin association of lakes is to conserve, enhance, and restore wisconsin's 15,000 lakes to ensure their sustainability for the benefit and collective use and enjoyment for this and future generations.

Environment
4
Wisconsin Waterfowl Association Inc

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…

Environment
5
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
6
Landmark Conservancy Inc

Landmark conservancy is a nationally accredited, nonprofit conservation organization serving 20 counties across northwest wisconsin. their mission is to conserve wisconsin's natural legacy for everyone...forever.

Environment
7
West Wisconsin Land Trust Inc

The mission of the west wisconsin land trust, inc. is to preserve western wisconsin's natural character by informing, facilitating, and partnering with private landowners, communities, and local governments to protect valuable land.

—
8
Friends of Wisconsin State Parks Inc

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

Recreation & Sports
9
Waukesha County Community Foundation

Wccf is a pool of permanent endowment and project funds created primarily by and for the people of waukesha county to provide grant support to charitable organizations. the intent of the foundation is to serve a broad spectrum of the…

Philanthropy
10
Wisconsin Principles Inc

Wisconsin principles (wp) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization dedicated to preserving conservative values in the state of wisconsin. committed to fiscal conservatism, educational choice, and individual liberty, we strive to empower…

Civil Rights
11
Wisconsin's Green Fire Incorporated

Advance science-informed analysis and policy solutions that address wisconsin's greatest conservation challenges.

Environment
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wisconsin Equal Justice Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Animal Shelter Assistance Program. 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

21 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. 21 of the 39 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)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
21/21
Grantees still filing
16/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST DOMINIC CONGREGATION: $1,000,000 · OtherST DOMINIC CONGREGATION+28 more: $321,350 · Other+28 moreTHE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $37,500 · Human ServicesKIDS MATTER INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesLAKESHORE FOSTER FAMILIES AND FRIENDS INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $55,000 · EnvironmentTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $10,000 · EnvironmentSanta Barbara Bucket Brigade: $50,000 · Public Safety & DisasterAnimal Shelter Assistance Program: $30,000 · AnimalsWISCONSIN EQUAL JUSTICE FUND INC: $25,000 · Crime & LegalWISCONSIN TRUST ACCOUNT FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Crime & LegalPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN INC: $20,000 · Health
Other$1,321,350Human Services$67,500Environment$65,000Public Safety & Disaster$50,000Animals$30,000Crime & Legal$30,000Health$20,000

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 budgetTHE CONSERVATION FUND A NONPROFIT CORPORATION: $55,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSanta Barbara Bucket Brigade: $50,000 over 4y, 3.7% of budgetMONTECITO TRAILS FOUNDATION: $41,500 over 5y, 4.8% of budgetTHE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $37,500 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetAnimal Shelter Assistance Program: $30,000 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetKIDS MATTER INC: $25,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetWISCONSIN EQUAL JUSTICE FUND INC: $25,000 over 3y, 2.2% of budgetCHENEQUA FOUNDATION: $25,000 over 4y, 22% of budgetPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $10,000 over 2y, 1.1% of budgetHOUSE OF HOPE GREEN BAY INC: $10,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWISCONSIN LAW FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetWESTMONT COLLEGE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWISCONSIN TRUST ACCOUNT FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPINE LAKE SAILING SCHOOL INC: $5,000 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetCOOPERATIVE FOR ASSISTANCE AND RELIEF EVERYWHERE INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE UWM FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBELLOSGUARDO FOUNDATION INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF LAKESHORE STATE PARK: $975 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetWISCONSIN PHILANTHROPY NETWORK INC: $375 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Greater Milwaukee Fou…Herbert H Kohl Charit…Baird Foundation IncSanta Barbara Foundat…Morgan Stanley Global…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Greater Milwaukee Foundation IncWI17.2× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Santa Barbara Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Mark and Sally Egan Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mark and Sally Egan Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%6%14%25%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Mark and Sally Egan Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Mark and Sally Egan Foundation Inc 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.

    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 39 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 Mark and Sally Egan’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