· Private foundation
Richard L Boland Love for Life 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
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 79% of RICHARD L BOLAND LOVE FOR LIFE FOUNDATION INC’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k6 grants · $113k
- $250k+6 grants · $7.8M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| ST FRANCIS DE SALES SEMINARY | $2,000,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES FDN OF ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE | $2,000,000 |
| LIFE'S CONNECTION MUKWONAGO CENTER INC | $1,500,000 |
| SETON CATHOLIC SCHOOLS | $1,000,000 |
| SAINT PAUL VI INSTITURE | $1,000,000 |
| PRO-LIFE WISCONSIN EDUCATION TASK FORCE INC | $260,000 |
| WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE INC | $28,302 |
| CHRISTIAN LIFE RESOURCES AGING WITH GRACE | $25,000 |
| CARENET PREGNANCY CENTER OF MILWAUKEE | $20,000 |
| WOMEN'S CARE CENTER OF MILWAUKEE CORP | $20,000 |
| FAMILY LIFE COUNCIL INC | $10,000 |
| ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE | $10,000 |
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, $3.4M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 33% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-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 0% since the first grant, against -24% for the ones you funded once.
12 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 5 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, 49% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $4.0M 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
- LCLIFE'S CONNECTION INC4× · 2022–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +129% · 45% of their budget
- FLFAMILY LIFE COUNCIL INC4× · 2022–2025 · $60k · revenue +10% · 39% of their budget
- WSWOMENS SUPPORT CENTERS OF MILWAUKEE INC2× · 2022–2023 · $50k · revenue +54%
Funded once
- MUMARQUETTE UNIVERSITY BOLAND INSTITUTE FOR NATURAL FAMILY PLANNINGone grant, 2024 · $8.2M
- NDNOTRE DAME SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2024 · $1.0M · revenue -97% · 28% of their budget
- TBTHE BASILICA OF ST JOSAPHATone grant, 2024 · $150k
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.
Protecting a child's right to live and be loved by loving moms and dads.
To support pro-life organizations.
To provide support for pregnant women
We are an outreach ministry of jesus christ committed to providing compassionate guidance, education, and help for all involved prior to, during, and following an unplanned pregnancy.
Defend the right to life of all citizens of our state, whether born or preborn, young, old, disabled, or terminally ill. we affirm that the right to life exists at the moment of fertilization and extends until natural death.
to support WI Pregnancy Resource Centers
The Womens Pregnancy Center is a Christ-centered ministry designed to engage and inform women in unplanned pregnancies, empowering them to make life-affirming decisions.
To provide pregnancy testing (including ultrasound examinations), counseling, and referrals as needed (including post-abortion counseling) in our offices and through our 24-hour help-line.
Life Matters Worldwide encourages, equips and strengthens pregnancy care workers so they can continue to provide life-affirming services.
To provide physical and emotional support to women and their families facing unplanned pregnancies through a christ centered and biblically based approach.
The Pregnancy Care Center is a Christian organization to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to boldly endorse the sacredness of all human life, by providing comprehensive, practical services as enduring alternatives to abortion.
Provide crisis pregnancy services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Life's Connection Inc and the most unlike its peers is Covenant House. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
14 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. 14 of the 25 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 LIFE'S CONNECTION INC ↗
- Who funds HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL INC ↗
- Who funds Womens Care Center of Milwaukee Corp ↗
- Who funds NOTRE DAME SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PRO-LIFE WISCONSIN EDUCATION TASK FORCE INC ↗
- Who funds POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds Saint Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction Inc ↗
- Who funds FAMILY LIFE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds Womens Care Center of Milwaukee Mother Mary Corp ↗
- Who funds WOMENS SUPPORT CENTERS OF MILWAUKEE INC ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE INC ↗
- Who funds CARE NET PREGNANCY CENTER OF MILWAUKEE INC ↗
- Who funds PRIESTS FOR LIFE ↗
- Who funds COVENANT HOUSE ↗
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: The Moran Foundation · Archdiocese of Milwaukee Catholic Community Foundation Inc · Evan & Marion Helfaer Foundation · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & Waukesha County Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Mercy Works Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust
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 Richard L Boland Love for Life 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Richard L Boland Love for Life Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Richard L Boland Love for Life 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.