Skip to content
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Inc

Michael fields agricultural institute's mission is to help rural and urban farms and agricultural communities in wisconsin and beyond be healthy environmentally, economically, and socially.

$733k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$108k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Education$555kFood & Nutrition$536kPhilanthropy$197kEnvironment$72kYouth Development$17kCommunity Improvement$16kMembership Benefit$16k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 9 grants below total $534,373, the rows itemized in this filing. The $733,198 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $198,825 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $121k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $404k
$41,769
Median grant
3
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
WISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATION$107,629
RENEWING THE COUNTRYSIDE$104,143
BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM$100,586
GLOBAL PHILANTHROPHY PARTNERSHIP$91,390
MARBLESEED$41,769
NEIGHBORHOOD FOOD SOLUTIONS$35,480
MOTHERLAND GARDENS COMMUNITY PROJECT$27,346
REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA$16,815
GROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC$9,215
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 (FY23–24, $46k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%MOTHERLAND GARDENS COMMUNITY PROJECT: $27k → 11%MOTHERLAND GARDENS COMMUNITY PROJECT: $19k → 11%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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$946k · 9 repeat orgs$463k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +105% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

9 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
9

Total granted

$946k
$345k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+105%
-8%

Still filing today

67%
22%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 78% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $117k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
EducationPhilanthropyHealthEnvironmentHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • RT
    RENEWING THE COUNTRYSIDE
    3× · 2022–2024 · $263k · revenue +167%
  • WF
    WISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATION
    2× · 2023–2024 · $206k · revenue +114%
  • GP
    GLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP
    3× · 2022–2024 · $197k · revenue +105%

Funded once

  • UM
    UW MADISON
    one grant, 2023 · $150k
  • WF
    WISCONSIN FARMER'S UNION
    one grant, 2022 · $51k
  • UM
    UW MADISON CENTER FOR INTEGRATED AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
    one grant, 2023 · $41k
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
Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota

Support the development and enhancement of sustainable farming systems through farmer-to-farmer networking, innovation, demonstration, and education.

Food & Nutrition
2
Sustainable Growers
—
3
Rural Advantage

The purpose of this corporation is to promote the connections between agriculture, the environment, and rural communities in order to improve ecological health, economic viability, and rural vitality.

Environment
4
American Farmland Trust

Saves the land that sustains us by protecting farmland, promoting sound farming practices, and keeping farmers on the land.

Food & Nutrition
5
Feed Iowa First

To combat food insecurity today and tomorrow by growing food and farmers.

Food & Nutrition
6
August West Foundation for Sustainable Ag
Food & Nutrition
7
Environmental Initiative

Catalyze collaboration across perspectives, power, and systems for social equity and environmental health.

Environment
8
Fondy Food Center Inc

He fondy food center connects greater milwaukee to local, fresh food- from farm to market to table - so that children learn better, adults live healthier, and communities celebrate cultural food traditions.

Food & Nutrition
9
Western Sustainability Exchange

Advancing sustainability in the western area of the united states through a series of programs and activities designed to promote better ranching practices. a strong focus is to provide ranchers with the information, tools, technical…

Environment
10
Frogtown Garden

Frogtown Farm is an urban farm with a mission to enrich the world by cultivating soil and community in Frogtown. The farm is built upon values of justice for people and the planet, connection within and across communities, resilience with…

Environment
11
The Foundation for Agricultural Integrit
Philanthropy
12
Ag Technology and Environmental Stewardship Foundation Inc
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Global Philanthropy Partnership; the most unlike its peers is Latino Economic Development Center. 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 20 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UW MADISON: $149,946 · OtherUW MADISONBOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM: $100,586 · OtherBOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN …NEIGHBORHOOD FOOD SOLUTIONS INC: $86,670 · OtherNEIGHBORHOOD FOOD SOLUTIONS INCWISCONSIN FARMER'S UNION: $50,723 · OtherWISCONSIN FARMER'S UNIONUW MADISON CENTER FOR INTEGRATED AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS: $41,000 · OtherUW MADISON CENTER FOR INTEGRATED AGRICULTURA…BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM: $27,316 · OtherCONVERGENCE AGRICULTURE LLC: $22,000 · OtherWESTERN WISCONSIN CONSERVATION COUNCIL: $19,487 · Other+4 more: $57,190 · Other+4 moreRENEWING THE COUNTRYSIDE: $262,828 · EducationRENEWING THE COUNTRYSIDEWISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATION: $205,868 · EducationWISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATIONGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP: $197,440 · PhilanthropyGLOBAL PHILANTH…MARBLESEED INC: $75,104 · HealthTHE MOTHERLAND GARDENS COMMUNITY PROJECT: $45,947 · Human ServicesGROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC: $42,265 · EnvironmentLatino Economic Development Center: $16,000 · Housing & ShelterADVOCATES FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE NFP: $8,500 · Food & Nutrition
Other$554,918Education$468,696Philanthropy$197,440Health$75,104Human Services$45,947Environment$42,265Housing & Shelter$16,000Food & Nutrition$8,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRENEWING THE COUNTRYSIDE: $262,828 over 3y, 4.6% of budgetWISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATION: $205,868 over 2y, 24% of budgetGLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP: $197,440 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetMARBLESEED INC: $75,104 over 3y, 1.4% of budgetTHE MOTHERLAND GARDENS COMMUNITY PROJECT: $45,947 over 2y, 28% of budgetGROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC: $42,265 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetLatino Economic Development Center: $16,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetADVOCATES FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE NFP: $8,500 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 RENEWING THE COUNTRYSIDE ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN FARMERS UNION FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds GLOBAL PHILANTHROPY PARTNERSHIP ↗
  • Who funds MARBLESEED INC ↗
  • Who funds THE MOTHERLAND GARDENS COMMUNITY PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds GROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds Latino Economic Development Center ↗
  • Who funds ADVOCATES FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE NFP ↗

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.

The McKnight Foundati…Bradshaw-Knight Found…American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
The McKnight FoundationMN15.4× affinity5 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The McKnight Foundation · Bradshaw-Knight Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michael Fields Agricultural Institute Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 20 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 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 Michael Fields Agricultural Institute’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