Skip to content
Merganser Fund Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Merganser Fund Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$19k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Animals$29kHealth$16kReligion$16kEducation$14kPhilanthropy$13kEnvironment$11kHuman Services$7kRecreation & Sports$2kOther$0
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$11k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
VERSITI BRI FOUNDATION$6,000
ST TERESA OF CALCUTTA PARISH$4,000
MALAIKA EARLY LEARNING CENTER$3,550
FELLOW MORTALS$2,000
LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC$2,000
TALL PINES CONSERVANCY$1,000
HEBRON HOUSE$100
THE WOMENS CENTER$100
MILWAUKEE PBS$60
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 (FY17–24, $900) land where the poverty rate runs at 5%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE WOMENS CENTER: $200 → 5%THE WOMENS CENTER: $100 → 5%THE WOMANS CENTER: $100 → 5%THE WOMENS CENTER: $100 → 5%CHRISTMAS CLEARING COUNCIL: $200 → 5%CHRISTMAS CLEARING COUNCIL: $100 → 5%ZACHARRIAHS ACRES: $100 → 5%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.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
WI
NY
OR
OH
RI
CA
MO
MD
NM
SC
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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$99k · 13 repeat orgs$12k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +94% since the first grant, against +51% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
40

Total granted

$99k
$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+94%
+51%

Still filing today

62%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentEducationHuman ServicesAnimalsHealthRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • FM
    FELLOW MORTALS INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $27k · revenue +94%
  • LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $15k · revenue +410%
  • MALAIKA EARLY LEARNING CENTER
    5× · 2017–2024 · $13k · revenue +97%

Funded once

  • ST
    ST THERESA OF CALCUTTA PARISH
    one grant, 2020 · $2k
  • AP
    ANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICOgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +73%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $1k
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
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
2
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
3
Natural Resource Development Association Inc

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…

Environment
4
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
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
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…

—
8
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
9
Natural Resources Foundation of

To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.

—
10
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.

—
11
Lake Leelanau Lake Association

The lake leelanau lake association is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the quality and beauty of lake leelanau and its surrounding watershed for current and future generations.

Environment
12
Wisconsin's Green Fire Incorporated

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

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fellow Mortals Inc; the most unlike its peers is Waukesha County Christmas Clearing Council 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

21 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 21 of the 54 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)
10
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 TERESA OF CALCUTTA PARISH: $13,385 · OtherST TERESA OF CALCUTTA PARISHVERSITI BRI FOUNDATION: $12,000 · OtherVERSITI BRI FOUNDATIONRELATIONSHIP CENTER: $5,800 · OtherRELATIONSHIP CENTERST THERESA OF CALCUTTA PARISH: $1,930 · Other+35 more: $8,010 · Other+35 moreFELLOW MORTALS INC: $26,907 · AnimalsFELLOW MORTALS INCANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICO: $1,600 · AnimalsANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICOLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $14,820 · HealthLAKE AREA FREE …+1 more: $100 · HealthMALAIKA EARLY LEARNING CENTER: $13,050 · EducationMALAIKA EARLY…UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC: $500 · Education+1 more: $100 · EducationTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $10,000 · EnvironmentTALL PINES …PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC: $600 · EnvironmentWAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $400 · Environment+1 more: $260 · EnvironmentTHE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $500 · Human ServicesWAUKESHA COUNTY CHRISTMAS CLEARING COUNCIL INC: $400 · Human ServicesZACHARIAH'S ACRES INC: $100 · Human ServicesALL HANDS BOATWORKS INC: $600 · Recreation & Sports
Other$41,125Animals$28,507Health$14,920Education$13,650Environment$11,260Human Services$1,000Recreation & Sports$600

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFELLOW MORTALS INC: $26,907 over 7y, 2.4% of budgetLAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC: $14,820 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetMALAIKA EARLY LEARNING CENTER: $13,050 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $10,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICO: $1,600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetALL HANDS BOATWORKS INC: $600 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC: $600 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHENEQUA FOUNDATION: $500 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $500 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetWAUKESHA COUNTY CHRISTMAS CLEARING COUNCIL INC: $400 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetKETTLE MORAINE GARDEN CLUB INC: $260 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetFOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL AUTISM ASSOCIATION INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSTEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO ASSOCIATION INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetWESTERN GOLF ASSOCIATION: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetZACHARIAH'S ACRES INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetST JOHN'S NORTHWESTERN ACADEMIES: $100 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.

  • Who funds FELLOW MORTALS INC ↗
  • Who funds LAKE AREA FREE CLINIC INC ↗
  • Who funds MALAIKA EARLY LEARNING CENTER ↗
  • Who funds TALL PINES CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICO ↗
  • Who funds ALL HANDS BOATWORKS INC ↗
  • Who funds PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY INC ↗
  • Who funds CHENEQUA FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds THE WOMEN'S CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds WAUKESHA COUNTY CHRISTMAS CLEARING COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds KETTLE MORAINE GARDEN CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS INC ↗
  • Who funds NATIONAL AUTISM ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds GLIDE FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL TO TOWERS FOUNDATION ↗

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…A C Kootz FoundationArthur C Kootz Founda…Four-Four Foundation …The Galaxy Foundation…Windhover Foundation …Waukesha County Commu…Ge Aerospace Foundati…Baird Foundation IncDebbink Family Founda…Jean & Thomas Harbeck…Green Bay Packers Fou…
Greater Milwaukee Foundation IncWI19.1× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · A C Kootz Foundation · Arthur C Kootz Foundation · Four-Four Foundation Inc · The Galaxy Foundation Inc · Windhover Foundation Inc · Waukesha County Community Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · Debbink Family Foundation Inc · Jean & Thomas Harbeck Family Foundation · Green Bay Packers 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 Merganser Fund Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Merganser Fund Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%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
    2get 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.

    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 54 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Merganser’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