How much did RUSINOW FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 56% of RUSINOW FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2018

—

2019

—

2020

—

2021

—

2022

democracy

2023

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$1,500

Median grant

States reached

Total assets

Largest grants

CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION$3,248
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION$3,000
AMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION$2,000
ART OF DANCE$1,500
WISCONSIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND ARTS AND LETTERS$1,000
SCHLITZ AUDOBON NATURE CENTER$900
AURORA FOUNDATION$500

02The need

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.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 10%. 45% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$209k · 17 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +46% since the first grant, against +28% for the ones you funded once.

17 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 15 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$209k

$29k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+46%

+28%

Still filing today

53%

50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 43% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Arts & CultureAnimalsEnvironmentHealthEducationCivil RightsOther

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

AB
AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY
3× · 2021–2023 · $28k · revenue +54%
WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY
5× · 2018–2023 · $19k · revenue +30%
WC
WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC
2× · 2021–2022 · $8k · revenue +379%

Funded once

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIONgraduated
one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +33%
CF
COMMITTEE FOR OPEN DEMOCRACYgraduated
one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue +4496%
TW
TOGETHER WISCONSIN NETWORK
one grant, 2018 · $3k

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Southern Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Dedicated to working with land owners to protect conservation-worthy land and natural resources of southern wisconsin.

Environment

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

Wisconsin Dairy Products Association Inc

Statewide trade association representing the interests of the dairy processing industry through advocacy and education

—

Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Land Conservation

Environment

Wisconsin World Affairs Council Inc

—

Wisconsin State Genealogical

Arts & Culture

Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation

To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.

Environment

Wisconsin Waterfowl Association Inc

Working to further restoration and conservation of wisconsin's waterfowl and wetland resources.

Environment

Wisconsin Wetlands Association Inc

Dedicated to protection, restoration, and enjoyment of wetlands and associated ecosystems through science-based programs, education, and advocacy.

Environment

Milwaukee Public Museum Inc

The milwaukee public museum inspires curiosity, excites minds and increases the desire to preserve and protect our world's natural and cultural diversity through exhibitions, educational programs, collections and research.

Arts & Culture

Gathering Waters Inc

To help land trusts, landowners, and communities protect the places that make wisconsin special.

Environment

Citizen Action of Wisconsin Inc

Citizen action of wisconsin - an issue-focused coalition of individuals and organizations committed to achieving social, economic, and environmental justice

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wisconsin Conservation Voices Inc and the most unlike its peers is Smithsonian Institution. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 38 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 7% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/21

the rest of the field

2,639/36,505

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

19 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

19/19

Grantees still filing

13/19

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$136,148Animals$53,250Environment$28,250Arts & Culture$11,881Public Benefit$5,000Education$4,000Health$3,150Civil Rights$2,500

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.

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.

The Brookby FoundationWI15.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Brookby Foundation · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 organisation RUSINOW FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

2get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%

typical government reliance, FY20–24

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. 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.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: WISCONSIN PROGRESS.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

high risk

~2 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 8 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 474544190 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on WISCONSIN PROGRESS, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

FlagFinancial stability— Roughly 2 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 0% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

RUSINOW FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

19 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation?

More from the funding graph

RUSINOW FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

19 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation?

More from the funding graph