Skip to content

· Private foundation

Plan Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$400k
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$65k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Education$535kArts & Culture$384kHuman Services$375kEnvironment$305kEmployment$265kHealth$158kFood & Nutrition$65kRecreation & Sports$5k
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k4 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $202k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $180k
$20,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$4.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM$65,000
UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL$65,000
ALL HANDS BOAT WORK$50,000
THE WOMEN'S CENTER$30,000
SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER$30,000
PENFIELD CHILDREN'S CENTER$25,000
FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON CENTER$22,000
RESTORING LANDS TRUST$20,000
NEXT DOOR FOUNDATION$20,000
WISCONSIN HISTORICAL FOUNDATION$16,000
THE CHARLES E KUBLY FOUNDATION INC$15,000
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE$14,000
WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC$10,000
FIRST STAGE$7,000
LIFE STRIDERS$5,000
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 (FY20–25, $375k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 62% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $30k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $25k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $25k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $21k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $21k → 5%THE WOMEN'S CENTER: $21k → 5%SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER: $30k → 17%SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER: $30k → 17%SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER: $30k → 17%SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER: $25k → 17%SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER: $24k → 17%SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER: $24k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $14k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $13k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $12k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $12k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $12k → 17%NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE: $8k → 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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.1M · 17 repeat orgs$33k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +32% since the first grant, against -17% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
1

Total granted

$2.1M
$8k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%
-17%

Still filing today

94%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k 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
EnvironmentArts & CultureHuman ServicesHealthEducationRecreation & 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

  • UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $426k · revenue +138%
  • MA
    MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $295k · revenue +27%
  • SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $162k · revenue +32%

Funded once

  • UNITED PERFORMING ARTS FUND INC
    one grant, 2020 · $8k · revenue -17%
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
Natural Resources Foundation of

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

—
2
Wisconsin Policy Forum Inc

We conduct impartial public policy research and analysis to drive informed debate and effective decision-making in the state of wisconsin.

Public Benefit
3
The Uwm Foundation Inc

The mission of the uwm foundation, inc. is to support the educational, literary, and scientific endeavors of the university of wisconsin-milwaukee by receiving, managing, and distributing gifts to benefit the university's students,…

Education
4
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
5
Groundwork Milwaukee Inc

Bring about the sustained regeneration, improvement, and management of the physical environment by developing community-based partnerships that empower people, businesses, and organizations to promote environmental, economic, and social…

Environment
6
Milwaukee Audubon Society Inc

Protect and restore Wisconsin's natural heritage and ecology through active leadership, education and stewardship

Environment
7
Milwaukee County War Memorial Inc

The war memorial center's mission is to honor the dead and serve the living. we commemorate the courageous men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom while preserving and sharing the stories, experiences, and…

Arts & Culture
8
Museum of Wisconsin Art Inc

The museum of wisconsin art celebrates the value, diversity, and uniqueness of the visual arts and artists of wisconsin. this is achieved by collecting, conserving, documenting, exhibiting, and promoting aesthetic understanding of the…

Arts & Culture
9
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
10
Milwaukee Parks Foundation Inc

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

Environment
11
Waukesha County Historical Society & Museum Inc

The museum is an educational institution dedicated to preserving the history and culture of waukesha county.

—
12
Waukesha County Community Foundation

Wccf is a pool of permanent endowment and project funds created primarily by and for the people of waukesha county to provide grant support to charitable organizations. the intent of the foundation is to serve a broad spectrum of the…

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Milwaukee Art Museum Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Charles E Kubly Foundation 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

17 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. 17 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
12/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC: $426,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL …MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $295,000 · Arts & CultureMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM…WISCONSIN HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INC: $49,000 · Arts & CultureWISCONSIN HISTORICAL…FIRST STAGE MILWAUKEE: $32,000 · Arts & CultureFIRST STAGE MILWAUKE…+1 more: $7,500 · Arts & CultureSOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER INC: $162,000 · Human ServicesSOJOURNER FAMILY PEA…THE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $142,000 · Human ServicesTHE WOMEN'S CENTER I…NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE INC: $71,000 · Human ServicesNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE O…ALL HANDS BOAT WORK: $265,000 · OtherALL HANDS BOAT WORKHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $65,000 · OtherHUNGER TASK FORCE I…RESTORING LANDS TRUST: $20,000 · OtherRESTORING LANDS TRU…+1 more: $5,000 · OtherFRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC: $120,000 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF SCHL…RESTORING LANDS INC: $99,000 · EnvironmentRESTORING LANDS…WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $32,000 · EnvironmentWAUKESHA COUNTY…URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC: $20,500 · EnvironmentURBAN ECOLOGY C…MILWAUKEE RIVERKEEPER INC: $13,000 · EnvironmentPENFIELD CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $123,000 · HealthTHE CHARLES E KUBLY FOUNDATION INC: $35,000 · HealthNEXT DOOR FOUNDATION INC: $109,000 · Recreation & Sports
Education$426,000Arts & Culture$383,500Human Services$375,000Other$355,000Environment$284,500Health$158,000Recreation & Sports$109,000

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC: $426,000 over 6y, 1.7% of budgetMILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC: $295,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetSOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER INC: $162,000 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetTHE WOMEN'S CENTER INC: $142,000 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetPENFIELD CHILDREN'S CENTER INC: $123,000 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC: $120,000 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetNEXT DOOR FOUNDATION INC: $109,000 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetRESTORING LANDS INC: $99,000 over 5y, 1.7% of budgetNEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE INC: $71,000 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $65,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetWISCONSIN HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INC: $49,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CHARLES E KUBLY FOUNDATION INC: $35,000 over 3y, 2.7% of budgetFIRST STAGE MILWAUKEE: $32,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetWAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $32,000 over 3y, 4.8% of budgetURBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC: $20,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetMILWAUKEE RIVERKEEPER INC: $13,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetUNITED PERFORMING ARTS FUND INC: $7,500 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.

  • Who funds UNIVERSITY LAKE SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC ↗
  • Who funds SOJOURNER FAMILY PEACE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds THE WOMEN'S CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds PENFIELD CHILDREN'S CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds NEXT DOOR FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds RESTORING LANDS INC ↗
  • Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE OF MILWAUKEE INC ↗
  • Who funds HUNGER TASK FORCE INC ↗
  • Who funds WISCONSIN HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CHARLES E KUBLY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds FIRST STAGE MILWAUKEE ↗
  • Who funds WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds URBAN ECOLOGY CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds MILWAUKEE RIVERKEEPER INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED PERFORMING ARTS FUND INC ↗

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 Foundation IncWI25.7× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Baird Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Four-Four Foundation Inc · Maihaugen Foundation Inc Agency Xxxxxx2262 · Richard and Ethel Herzfeld Foundation Inc · Evan & Marion Helfaer Foundation · Ge Aerospace Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · John C Bock 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 Plan Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Plan Foundation. 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%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
    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 Plan Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Plan Foundation 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 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-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 Plan’s filings →

    More from the funding graph