Skip to content

· 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.

$160k
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$373kYouth Development$94kArts & Culture$52kPublic Benefit$50kReligion$34kFood & Nutrition$31kAnimals$15kEducation$13kOther$0
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k10 grants · $28k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $82k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$6,200
Median grant
2
States reached
$3.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF LA CRESCENT$50,000
Individual grant recipient$40,000
FRIENDS OF THE LA CROSSE RIVER MARSH$12,000
FRIENDS OF THE BLUFFLANDS$10,000
NORSKEDALEN$10,000
WISCORPS$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
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%ABLELIGHT: $3k → 8%ABLELIGHT: $3k → 8%ABLELIGHT: $1k → 8%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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$605k · 21 repeat orgs$215k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +41% since the first grant, against +13% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

21
14

Total granted

$605k
$102k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+41%
+13%

Still filing today

33%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 29% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $114k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsFood & NutritionEducationYouth DevelopmentInternationalOther
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

  • MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC
    3× · 2020–2024 · $135k · revenue +145%
  • CC
    CENTRAL CONSERVATION INC
    4× · 2021–2025 · $39k · revenue +74%
  • NN
    NORSKEDALEN NATURE & HERITAGE CENTER INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $30k · revenue +41%

Funded once

  • SJ
    ST JOSEPH THE WORKMAN CATHEDRAL
    one grant, 2020 · $30k
  • BO
    BUREAU OF NATURAL HERITAGE
    one grant, 2024 · $20k
  • WI
    WAFER INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +70%
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
Waukesha County Land Conservancy Inc

To protect environmentally senstive land in waukesha county wisconsin

Environment
2
Wild Rivers Conservancy of the St Croix & Namekagon

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…

Environment
3
Natural Resources Foundation of

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

—
4
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
5
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
6
Rainforest Trust

Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.

International
7
Heartlands Conservancy

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.

Environment
8
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment
9
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

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…

Environment
10
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
11
Gathering Waters Inc

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…

Environment
12
Cedar Lakes Conservation Foundation Inc

To conserve the natural environment of the cedar lakes region.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc; 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.
04the grantee network

15 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. 15 of the 41 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
9/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: $90,000 · OtherBOY SCOUTS OF AMERICAIndividual grant recipient: $81,775 · OtherIndividual grant recipientWISCONSIN DNR NATURAL AREAS: $70,000 · OtherWISCONSIN DNR NATURAL AREASCITY OF LA CRESCENT: $50,000 · OtherCITY OF LA CRESCENTIndividual grant recipient: $40,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientST JOSEPH THE WORKMAN CATHEDRAL: $30,000 · OtherUW-LA CROSSE FOUNDATION MUSIC DEPARTMENT: $26,644 · OtherTHE PRAIRIE ENTHUSIASTs INC: $22,500 · OtherFRIENDS OF THE BLUFFLANDS INC: $21,550 · OtherNORSKEDALEN: $20,000 · OtherBUREAU OF NATURAL HERITAGE: $20,000 · Other+19 more: $107,212 · Other+19 moreMISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $135,000 · EnvironmentMISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVAN…CENTRAL CONSERVATION INC: $39,075 · EnvironmentCENTRAL CONSERVATION INCNORSKEDALEN NATURE & HERITAGE CENTER INC: $30,000 · EnvironmentNORSKEDALEN NATURE & HERITAG…+1 more: $2,500 · EnvironmentWAFER INC: $10,000 · Food & NutritionINTERNATIONAL OWL CENTER: $5,000 · AnimalsCOULEE REGION HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $2,500 · AnimalsABLELIGHT INC: $7,300 · Human ServicesGROW LA CROSSE INC: $6,200 · Youth DevelopmentPLEASANT RIDGE SCHOOL INC: $5,500 · EducationRIVERSIDE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP GARDENS INC: $5,000 · International
Other$579,681Environment$206,575Food & Nutrition$10,000Animals$7,500Human Services$7,300Youth Development$6,200Education$5,500International$5,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMISSISSIPPI VALLEY CONSERVANCY INC: $135,000 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetCENTRAL CONSERVATION INC: $39,075 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetNORSKEDALEN NATURE & HERITAGE CENTER INC: $30,000 over 3y, 2.4% of budgetTHE PRAIRIE ENTHUSIASTs INC: $22,500 over 2y, 3.2% of budgetHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $15,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetWAFER INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $7,972 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetABLELIGHT INC: $7,300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGROW LA CROSSE INC: $6,200 over 1y, 4.1% of budgetPLEASANT RIDGE SCHOOL INC: $5,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetINTERNATIONAL OWL CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetRIVERSIDE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP GARDENS INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetCOULEE REGION HUMANE SOCIETY INC: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED FUND FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES: $2,500 over 1y, 1.6% 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 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 COULEE REGION HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED FUND FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES ↗
  • Who funds CRAWFORD STEWARDSHIP PROJECT LTD ↗

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.

La Crosse Community FoundationWI30.4× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    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 41 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 Paul E Stry’s filings →

    More from the funding graph