Skip to content
Nita Soref 2006 Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Nita Soref 2006 Charitable Trust

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.

$50k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0183% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$678kHealth$39kEducation$20kPhilanthropy$14kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$25,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$97k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY$25,000
MILWAUKEE BALLET COMPANY$25,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE: $285k → 17%LYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $20k → 14%SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE: $259k → 17%SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE: $216k → 17%MILWAUKEE BALLET COMPANY: $50k → 17%MILWAUKEE BALLET COMPANY: $25k → 17%MILWAUKEE BALLET COMPANY: $25k → 17%FLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY: $50k → 17%FLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY: $25k → 17%FLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY: $25k → 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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$687k · 8 repeat orgs$59k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 6 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
6

Total granted

$687k
$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
+36%

Still filing today

100%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’18’19’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’18’19’23’24’25
Arts & CultureEducationPhilanthropyHousing & ShelterOther
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

  • FLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY INC
    5× · 2018–2025 · $288k · revenue +38%
  • MA
    MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $197k · revenue +8%
  • MILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM INC
    2× · 2018–2019 · $25k · revenue +7%

Funded once

  • LS
    LYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +23%
  • UW
    UNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKESHA COUNTY INC
    one grant, 2018 · $14k · revenue -8%
  • LS
    Lynn Sage Cancer Reserarch Foundation
    one grant, 2019 · $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
Milwaukee Public Theatre Inc

Making the arts accessible to all

—
2
Women's Project & Productions Inc

Wp theater is the nation's oldest and largest theater company dedicated to developing, producing, and promoting the work of women+ at every stage of their careers. for over four decades we have served as leaders of a global movement…

Arts & Culture
3
Rock River Repertory Theatre

Inspire artists, audiences, and our greater southern wisconsin community to celabrate the art of theatre.

Arts & Culture
4
Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design Inc

The milwaukee institute of art and design's mission is to ignite curious minds through art, design and service. we value courage to seek our own path, integrity to pursue our lives and work with meaning, kindness to thoughtfully engage…

—
5
Theater Mu Incorporated

Theater mu produces great performances born of arts, equity, and justice from the heart of the asian american experience.

Arts & Culture
6
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra Inc

The milwaukee symphony orchestra, inc. ("mso") reaches out to diverse audiences through concert performances and nationally recognized education and outreach programs. all programs are guided by the mso family shared vision which states…

Arts & Culture
7
Wisconsin Chamber Orchestra Inc

Strengthen communities by providing high-quality and innovative artistic experiences that entertain, inspire, and unite diverse audiences.

Arts & Culture
8
Madison Opera Inc

The mission of madison opera is to produce operas of the highest artistic standards.

Arts & Culture
9
Milwaukee Youth Arts Center Inc

To provide the finest collaborative environment for: supporting performing arts training and education for a diverse population of youth; nurturing youth from diverse ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, instilling life-skills…

Arts & Culture
10
Center Stage Associates Inc

See schedule o.inspired by our home city, baltimore center stage acts as a cultural catalyst for all communities to access theater in every form and engage in compelling conversations. programming: capture the collective imagination and…

Arts & Culture
11
Milwaukee World Festival Inc

The corporation shall be a civic organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes including in furtherance thereof, the production of an annual festival in the milwaukee metropolitan…

Arts & Culture
12
Music and Dance Theater Chicago Inc
Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Milwaukee Art Museum Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Foundation. 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

13 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. 13 of the 15 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY INC: $287,500 · Arts & CultureFLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY INCMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $196,667 · Arts & CultureMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INCMILWAUKEE BALLET COMPANY INC: $100,000 · Arts & CultureMILWAUKEE BALLET COMPANY INCUNITED PERFORMING ARTS FUND INC: $30,000 · Arts & CultureMILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM INC: $25,000 · Arts & Culture+4 more: $33,500 · Arts & CultureUNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $14,000 · PhilanthropyMILWAUKEE JEWISH FEDERATION INC: $10,000 · PhilanthropyLYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $20,000 · Housing & ShelterTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC: $20,000 · EducationLynn Sage Cancer Reserarch Foundation: $10,000 · OtherARCW, AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, Inc: $8,834 · Other
Arts & Culture$672,667Philanthropy$24,000Housing & Shelter$20,000Education$20,000Other$18,834

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFLORENTINE OPERA COMPANY INC: $287,500 over 5y, 3.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $196,667 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetMILWAUKEE BALLET COMPANY INC: $100,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetUNITED PERFORMING ARTS FUND INC: $30,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetLYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetPALM SPRINGS ART MUSEUM: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKESHA COUNTY INC: $14,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE JEWISH FEDERATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMILWAUKEE REPERTORY THEATER INC: $7,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMARCUS CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNEXT ACT THEATRE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

Bert L and Patricia S…Baird Foundation IncGe Aerospace Foundati…The Lubar Family Foun…Peck Foundation Milwa…Gardner FoundationRichard and Ethel Her…Youth Foundation IncEvan & Marion Helfaer…Herbert H Kohl Charit…Green Bay Packers Fou…American Endowment Fo…
Bert L and Patricia S Steigleder CharitableWI15.7× affinity5 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Bert L and Patricia S Steigleder Charitable · Baird Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · The Lubar Family Foundation Inc · Peck Foundation Milwaukee Ltd · Gardner Foundation · Richard and Ethel Herzfeld Foundation Inc · Youth Foundation Inc · Evan & Marion Helfaer Foundation · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · American Endowment 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 Nita Soref 2006 Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Nita Soref 2006 Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 Nita Soref 2006 Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Nita Soref 2006 Charitable Trust 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 15 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 Nita Soref 2006’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