Skip to content
Mutschler Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Mutschler Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$77k
Granted FY2025still arriving
39
Grants FY2025still arriving
9
States reached
$25k
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, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$221kEducation$184kRecreation & Sports$131kYouth Development$47kHuman Services$28kArts & Culture$27kReligion$26kAnimals$8kOther$0
02FY2025 · 39 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k37 grants · $42k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $35k
$500
Median grant
9
States reached
$2.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CLCFFOX HILL NATURE PRESERVE$25,000
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME$10,000
Individual grant recipient$7,500
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE$3,000
KIDS MATTER INC$3,000
FRIENDS OF BAXTER STATE PARK$2,500
Individual grant recipient$2,500
SOUTHEAST LAND TRUST$2,500
RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER$2,500
BEST BUDDIES$2,000
GIRLS ON THE RUN MAINE$1,500
A SAFE PLACE$1,500
MAYO CLINIC$1,000
CAPE ELIZABETH LAND TRUST$1,000
MILTON ACADEMY$1,000
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, $14k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%Animal Friends Rescue Project: $1k → 12%Animal Friends Rescue Project: $1k → 12%Milwaukee Jewish Free Loan Association: $100 → 17%Kids Matter Inc: $4k → 17%KIDS MATTER INC: $3k → 17%Kids Matter Inc: $3k → 17%PathFinders Milwaukee: $1k → 17%Pathfinders: $1k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

ME
NH
WA
MN
WI
NY
MA
WY
IN
PA
CA
CO
WV
TX
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$462k · 57 repeat orgs$85k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +37% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

57 repeat relationships: 22 still active in FY2025, 35 since wound down; 11 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

57
51

Total granted

$462k
$64k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+37%
+12%

Still filing today

67%
41%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 68% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $21k 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
EnvironmentEducationArts & CultureHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentRecreation & 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

  • THE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE CORPORATION
    7× · 2017–2023 · $98k · revenue +39%
  • CEDAR LAKES CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC
    6× · 2017–2022 · $81k · revenue +91%
  • LP
    LAKE PARK FRIENDS LTD
    9× · 2017–2025 · $25k · revenue +172%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $8k
  • US
    Univ School of Milw Soccer Fund
    one grant, 2022 · $5k
  • CLEAN WISCONSIN INC
    one grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue 0%
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
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
2
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
3
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
4
Natural Resources Foundation of

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

—
5
Minnesota Land Trust

The minnesota land trust protects and restores minnesota's most vital natural lands in order to provide wildlife habitat, clean water, outdoor experiences and scenic beauty for generations to come.

Environment
6
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
7
Wildlands Trust Inc

The wildlands trust works throughout southeastern massachusetts to conserve and permanently protect native habitats, farmland, and lands of high ecologic and scenic value that serve to keep our communities healthy and our residents…

Environment
8
Milwaukee Parks Foundation Inc

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

Environment
9
Milwaukee Water Commons Inc

Milwaukee water commons is helping catalyze milwaukee as a true model water city-a place where we all have a stake in the health of our waters and all share in their stewardship and benefits. we are advancing our community envisioned water…

Environment
10
Milwaukee Women Inc

Milwaukee women inc is an organization of executives determined to change the quality and composition of corporate boards to maximize the performance of public and private companies with a focus on women and women of color.

Education
11
Michigan Water Environment Association

Be and create stewards for the water environment of michigan. provide high quality education for michigan's water professionals. educate and inform policy makers and the general public. promote scientifically sound environmental practices…

Environment
12
Milwaukee Bar Association Inc

The mission of the milwaukee bar association is to be an inclusive, equitable and diverse organization that serves the interests of the lawyers, judges and the people of milwaukee county by working to promote the professional interests of…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is National Ataxia Foundation Incorporated. 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

71 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. 71 of the 123 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)
16
Early backer (in before they grew)
71/71
Grantees still filing
49/71
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE CORPORATION: $97,600 · EducationTHE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE CORPOR…University of Notre Dame du Lac: $91,600 · EducationUniversity of Notre Dame du LacPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $46,000 · EducationPresident and Fellows of Harvard CollegeMILTON ACADEMY: $9,000 · Education+7 more: $9,600 · EducationCLCFFOX HILL NATURE PRESERVE: $62,500 · OtherCLCFFOX HILL NATURE PRESERVEFirst Unitarian Society of Milwaukee: $21,000 · OtherFirst Unitarian Society of MilwaukeeA SAFE PLACE INC: $11,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $7,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $7,500 · Other+72 more: $111,312 · Other+72 moreCEDAR LAKES CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $81,371 · EnvironmentCEDAR LAKES CONSERVATIO…RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC: $17,700 · EnvironmentRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER…Big Sur Land Trust: $6,500 · EnvironmentURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC: $5,600 · Environment+13 more: $29,150 · Environment+13 moreLAKE PARK FRIENDS LTD: $25,350 · PhilanthropyWISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO ASSOCIATION INC: $7,750 · Arts & CultureMUSEUM OF WISCONSIN ART INC: $5,500 · Arts & CultureMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $2,600 · Arts & CultureHISTORIC WEST BEND THEATRE INC: $1,200 · Arts & Culture+2 more: $500 · Arts & CultureKIDS MATTER INC: $9,500 · Human ServicesFranciscan Workers of Junipero Serra: $2,500 · Human ServicesAnimal Friends Rescue Project: $2,000 · Human ServicesPATHFINDERS MILWAUKEE INC: $2,000 · Human ServicesTHROUGH THESE DOORS: $1,000 · Human Services+1 more: $100 · Human ServicesBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC: $5,500 · Youth DevelopmentMEARTH: $4,500 · Youth DevelopmentTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $2,000 · Youth DevelopmentBoys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County: $1,500 · Youth DevelopmentBADGER BOYS STATE INCORPORATED: $1,000 · Youth Development
Education$253,800Other$221,312Environment$140,321Philanthropy$25,350Arts & Culture$17,550Human Services$17,100Youth Development$14,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE CORPORATION: $97,600 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetUniversity of Notre Dame du Lac: $91,600 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetCEDAR LAKES CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $81,371 over 6y, 2.0% of budgetPresident and Fellows of Harvard College: $46,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetLAKE PARK FRIENDS LTD: $25,350 over 9y, 1.9% of budgetRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC: $17,700 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetA SAFE PLACE INC: $11,500 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetKIDS MATTER INC: $9,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetMILTON ACADEMY: $9,000 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetWISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO ASSOCIATION INC: $7,750 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetNANTUCKET BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC: $7,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetBig Sur Land Trust: $6,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWISCONSIN YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION INC: $6,250 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC: $5,600 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetEASTSIDE SENIOR SERVICES INC: $5,500 over 6y, 3.9% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC: $5,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMUSEUM OF WISCONSIN ART INC: $5,500 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetMAYO CLINIC: $5,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCLEAN WISCONSIN INC: $4,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMEARTH: $4,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetCARLETON COLLEGE: $3,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFive Rivers Conservation Trust: $3,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetGATHERING WATERS INC: $3,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetMISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $3,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTALL PINES CONSERVANCY: $2,800 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $2,600 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetFranciscan Workers of Junipero Serra: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF BAXTER STATE PARK: $2,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMOUNT MARY UNIVERSITY INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCOAL RIVER MOUNTAIN WATCH INC: $2,500 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCLEAN AIR TASK FORCE INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNANTUCKET LAND & WATER COUNCIL INC: $2,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetPARK SCHOOL CORPORATION: $2,250 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetNANTUCKET CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $2,250 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetRESTORING LANDS INC: $2,200 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetAnimal Friends Rescue Project: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPATHFINDERS MILWAUKEE INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF WASHINGTON COUNTY INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMOTLEY MUTTS RESCUE: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetGIRLS ON THE RUN - MAINE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBoys & Girls Clubs of Monterey County: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNANTUCKET COMMUNITY SAILING INC: $1,250 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetHISTORIC WEST BEND THEATRE INC: $1,200 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHROUGH THESE DOORS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $1,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetKAWASIWAJO COMMUNITY LAND TRUST: $1,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNANTUCKET SAFE HARBOR FOR ANIMALS INC: $1,000 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 THE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds University of Notre Dame du Lac ↗
  • Who funds CEDAR LAKES CONSERVATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds President and Fellows of Harvard College ↗
  • Who funds LAKE PARK FRIENDS LTD ↗
  • Who funds RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds A SAFE PLACE INC ↗
  • Who funds KIDS MATTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MILTON ACADEMY ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds NANTUCKET BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB INC ↗
  • Who funds Big Sur Land Trust ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds EASTSIDE SENIOR SERVICES INC ↗
  • Who funds BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC ↗
  • Who funds MUSEUM OF WISCONSIN ART INC ↗
  • Who funds MAYO CLINIC ↗
  • Who funds CLEAN WISCONSIN INC ↗
  • Who funds MEARTH ↗
  • Who funds CARLETON COLLEGE ↗
  • Who funds Five Rivers Conservation Trust ↗
  • Who funds GATHERING WATERS INC ↗
  • Who funds MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds TALL PINES CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds Franciscan Workers of Junipero Serra ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF BAXTER STATE PARK ↗

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…Green Bay Packers Fou…Baird Foundation IncUnited Way of Greater…Ralph Evinrude Founda…Evan & Marion Helfaer…Milwaukee Jewish Fede…Oscar & Augusta Schle…Anon Charitable TrustWest Bend Community F…Joseph and Vera Zilbe…
Greater Milwaukee Foundation IncWI41.5× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County Inc · Ralph Evinrude Foundation Inc · Evan & Marion Helfaer Foundation · Milwaukee Jewish Federation Inc · Oscar & Augusta Schlegel Fdn · Anon Charitable Trust · West Bend Community Foundation Inc · Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc

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 Mutschler Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Mutschler Family Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 50%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 4%
  • A Safe Place Inc: 45% of income from government
  • President and Fellows of Harvard College: 7% of income from government
  • Nantucket Dreamland Foundation Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Nantucket Conservation Foundation Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Best Buddies International Inc: 4% of income from government
  • Pan-Massachusetts Challenge Inc: 0% of income from government
  • Milton Academy: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
5get no government money at all
19report 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 Mutschler Family Foundation Inc?

Find your warmest path to Mutschler Family 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 123 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 Mutschler Family’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