Skip to content
Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$12k
Granted FY2024still arriving
7
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$3k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Animals$116kEnvironment$53kScience & Tech$31kArts & Culture$17kPublic Benefit$12kFood & Nutrition$5kEducation$3kHealth$3kOther$0
02FY2024 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 48% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.

area typical 10%AMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION: $3k → 10%THE LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETYINC: $1k → 9%COMMITTEE FOR OPEN DEMOCRACY: $5k → 14%WISCONSIN SOCIETY OF ORNITHOLOGY: $5k → 6%OZAUKEE WASHINGTON LAND TRUST INC: $2k → 6%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $6k → 9%BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS: $1k → 10%WISCONSIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND ARTS AND LETTERS: $1k → 10%ART OF DANCE: $2k → 12%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION: $3k → 19%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $13k → 6%AMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION: $3k → 10%WISCONSIN SOCIETY OF ORNITHOLOGY: $3k → 6%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $5k → 9%WI LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INSTITUTE: $8k → 10%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $13k → 6%AMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION: $2k → 10%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $5k → 9%WI LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INSTITUTE: $8k → 10%AMERICAN BIRDING CONSERVANCY: $10k → 6%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $3k → 9%WI LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INSTITUTE: $5k → 10%WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $13k → 17%AMERICAN BIRDING CONSERVANCY: $10k → 6%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $3k → 9%WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC: $5k → 10%WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $2k → 17%AMERICAN BIRDING CONSERVANCY: $10k → 6%WESTERN GREAT LAKES BIRD & BAT OBSERVATORY: $6k → 6%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $3k → 9%TOGETHER WISCONSIN NETWORK: $3k → 10%WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $2k → 17%AMERICAN BIRDING CONSERVANCY: $5k → 6%WESTERN GREAT LAKES BIRD & BAT OBSERVATORY: $5k → 6%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $3k → 9%WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC: $3k → 10%WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $1k → 17%AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY: $3k → 6%CEDAR GROVE ORINTHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION: $3k → 9%WI LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INSTITUTE: $3k → 10%FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER: $4k → 17%FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER: $4k → 17%FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER: $4k → 17%FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER: $4k → 17%FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER: $3k → 17%BLUEBIRD RESTORATION ASSOCIATION OF WISCONSIN: $2k → 10%BLUEBIRD RESTORATION OF WISCONSIN: $2k → 10%HUNGER TASK FORCE: $2k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
WI
NY
CA
VA
DE
NC
DC
FL
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.

85%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$209k · 14 repeat orgs$35k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +67% since the first grant, against -2% for those funded once.

14 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2024, 12 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
18

Total granted

$209k
$29k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+67%
-2%

Still filing today

86%
61%

New vs renewed · share of each year

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

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CultureHealthAnimalsEnvironmentEducationCivil RightsOther
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

  • AB
    American Bird Conservancy
    7× · 2017–2023 · $63k · revenue +54%
  • WC
    WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC
    6× · 2017–2022 · $30k · revenue +379%
  • WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY
    5× · 2018–2023 · $19k · revenue +61%

Funded once

  • SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $10k · revenue +31%
  • CF
    COMMITTEE FOR OPEN DEMOCRACY INC
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -100%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2018 · $3k
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
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
2
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
3
Milwaukee Women Inc

Milwaukee women inc is an organization of executives determined to change the quality and composition of corporate boards to maximize the performance of public and private companies with a focus on women and women of color.

Education
4
Wisconsin Principles Inc

Wisconsin principles (wp) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization dedicated to preserving conservative values in the state of wisconsin. committed to fiscal conservatism, educational choice, and individual liberty, we strive to empower…

Civil Rights
5
Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Inc

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

Environment
6
One Wisconsin Now Inc

To advance progressive values, ideas and policies through research, policy, networking, advocacy and public education.

—
7
Wisconsin Public Radio Association Inc

The purpose of the wisconsin public radio association (wpra) is to support wisconsin public radio by engaging in cooperative fundraising, stewardship and advocacy. the wpra generates support through programs and participatory activities…

Arts & Culture
8
Natural Resources Foundation of

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

—
9
Wisconsin Public Broadcasting Foundation Inc

The Wisconsin Public Broadcasting Foundation WPBF supports the work of the Educational Communications Board ECB a State of Wisconsin agency committed to ensuring that public media and public safety programs and services are available…

Arts & Culture
10
Wisconsin Waterfowl Association Inc

The purpose of the association shall be to restore and conserve wisconsin's waterfowl and wetland resources; to educate state waterfowlers during their progression from natural resource consumer to steward; and to promote governmental…

Environment
11
Public Policy Forum Inc Researching Community Issues

We seek, discover, and disclose true and accurate information to enhance the effectiveness of government and public policy in southeastern Wisconsin; and we facilitate public policy discussion and action.

—
12
Wisconsin Maritime Museum Inc

The wisconsin maritime museum connects all people with wisconsin's waterways, by engaging and educating the public about wisconsin's maritime history, wisconsin's world war ii submarines, uss cobia, and the great lakes. the wisconsin…

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Wisconsin Conservation Voices Inc; the most unlike its peers is Committee for Open Democracy 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

25 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. 25 of the 37 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)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/25
Grantees still filing
17/25
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

American Bird Conservancy: $62,500 · AnimalsAmerican Bird ConservancyWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $18,750 · AnimalsWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETYAMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION: $8,000 · AnimalsAMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATIONCEDAR GROVE ORNITHOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATION INC: $30,648 · OtherCEDAR GROVE ORNITHOLOGICAL RESE…LAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $12,100 · OtherLAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORYHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $5,000 · OtherHUNGER TASK FORCE INCBLUEBIRD RESTORATION OF WISCONSIN: $2,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $2,500 · OtherUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $3,000 · OtherWISCONSIN PROGRESS INC: $2,500 · Other+12 more: $9,900 · Other+12 moreWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC: $30,000 · EnvironmentWISCONSIN CONSERVATION …FRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC: $18,250 · EnvironmentFRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDU…RESTORING LANDS INC: $2,500 · EnvironmentSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $10,000 · Arts & CultureRADIO MILWAUKEE INC: $3,500 · Arts & CultureWISCONSIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ARTS AND LETTERS: $1,000 · Arts & CultureTHE BARACK OBAMA FOUNDATION: $1,000 · Arts & Culture+2 more: $881 · Arts & CultureTHE WISCONSIN SOCIETY FOR ORNITHOLOGY INC: $10,500 · Science & TechCOMMITTEE FOR OPEN DEMOCRACY INC: $5,000 · Public BenefitWISCONSIN DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN INC: $2,000 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 · HealthROCKFORD FAMILY PLANNING FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 · HealthBRADLEY FAMILY FOUNDATION INC: $150 · Health
Animals$89,250Other$68,148Environment$50,750Arts & Culture$16,381Science & Tech$10,500Public Benefit$5,000Health$4,150

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 budgetAmerican Bird Conservancy: $62,500 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetWISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOICES INC: $30,000 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $18,750 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF SCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CENTER INC: $18,250 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetLAKE MICHIGAN BIRD OBSERVATORY: $12,100 over 4y, 3.4% of budgetTHE WISCONSIN SOCIETY FOR ORNITHOLOGY INC: $10,500 over 5y, 2.8% of budgetSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN BIRDING ASSOCIATION: $8,000 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetCOMMITTEE FOR OPEN DEMOCRACY INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $5,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetRADIO MILWAUKEE INC: $3,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRESTORING LANDS INC: $2,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetWISCONSIN PROGRESS INC: $2,500 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetWISCONSIN DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN INC: $2,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetWISCONSIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ARTS AND LETTERS: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BARACK OBAMA FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetROCKFORD FAMILY PLANNING FOUNDATION INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF GREEN COUNTY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE 1947 PARTITION ARCHIVE: $500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMADISON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA INC: $381 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCAMP MANITO-WISH YMCA INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBRADLEY FAMILY FOUNDATION INC: $150 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

The Brookby FoundationHerbert H Kohl Charit…Greater Milwaukee Fou…Natural Resources Fou…Richard and Ethel Her…Madison Community Fou…Green Bay Packers Fou…Alliant Energy Founda…Baird Foundation IncGe Aerospace Foundati…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…
The Brookby FoundationWI17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Brookby Foundation · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Natural Resources Foundation Of · Richard and Ethel Herzfeld Foundation Inc · Madison Community Foundation · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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 Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Rusinow Family Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%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
    2get no government money at all
    4report 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.

    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 37 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rusinow Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home