· Private foundation
Paul E Stry 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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k10 grants · $28k
- $10k–50k5 grants · $82k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CITY OF LA CRESCENT | $50,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $40,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE LA CROSSE RIVER MARSH | $12,000 |
| NORSKEDALEN | $10,000 |
| WISCORPS | $10,000 |
| FRIENDS OF THE BLUFFLANDS | $10,000 |
| THE PRAIRIE ENTHUSIASTS | $7,500 |
| GROW LA CROSSE | $6,200 |
| DRIFTLESS BIRDS | $5,394 |
| UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LA CROSSE FOUNDATION MUSIC DEPARTMENT | $3,300 |
| PLEASANT RIDGE WALDORF SCHOOL | $3,000 |
| ABLELIGHT | $1,320 |
| NATURE CONSERVANCY | $660 |
| FIRST EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH | $330 |
| LA CROSSE FAMILY & CHILDRENS CENTER | $165 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY22–25, $7k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +41% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
21 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 29% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $114k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC3× · 2020–2024 · $135k · revenue +145%- CCCENTRAL CONSERVATION INC4× · 2021–2025 · $39k · revenue +74%
- NNNORSKEDALEN NATURE & HERITAGE CENTER INC3× · 2020–2022 · $30k · revenue +41%
Funded once
- SJST JOSEPH THE WORKMAN CATHEDRALone grant, 2020 · $30k
- BOBUREAU OF NATURAL HERITAGEone grant, 2024 · $20k
- WIWAFER INCgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +70%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To protect environmentally senstive land in waukesha county wisconsin
The mission of wild rivers conservancy of the st. croix & namekagon is to inspire stewardship to forever ensure the rare ecological integrity of the st. croix and namekagon riverway. the conservancy of the st. croix and namekagon works…
To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.
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.
The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The mission of heartlands conservancy is to empower and colaborate with the people of southern illinois to advance and protect the health of our distinctive communities and nationally significant natural and cultural resources.
Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.
This member-supported organization protects and restores iowa's land, water and wildlife for future generations. priorities include permanent land protection, promotion of improved land management and bringing new conservation…
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…
Gathering waters (wisconsin's alliance for land trusts) strengthens land trusts to protect wisconsin's special places and grow healthy, vibrant communities. the stronger the alliance between gathering waters' staff and board members, land…
To conserve the natural environment of the cedar lakes region.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc and the most unlike its peers is Grow La Crosse Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 41 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL CONSERVATION INC ↗
- Who funds NORSKEDALEN NATURE & HERITAGE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds THE PRAIRIE ENTHUSIASTs INC ↗
- Who funds HUNGER TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds WAFER INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds ABLELIGHT INC ↗
- Who funds GROW LA CROSSE INC ↗
- Who funds PLEASANT RIDGE SCHOOL INC ↗
- Who funds INTERNATIONAL OWL CENTER ↗
- Who funds RIVERSIDE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP GARDENS INC ↗
- Who funds CRAWFORD STEWARDSHIP PROJECT LTD ↗
- Who funds UNITED FUND FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES ↗
- Who funds COULEE REGION HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: La Crosse Community Foundation · Cleary-Kumm Foundation Inc · Xcel Energy Foundation · Mayo Clinic Group Return · Locher Family Foundation Trust Xxxxxx1227 · Smith Russell & Vera Private Fdn Xxxxxx4172 · Gundersen Lutheran Administrative Services Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Paul E Stry Foundation Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.