Skip to content
Schanock Family Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Schanock Family Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$47k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$40k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Environment$201kEducation$95kHuman Services$60kArts & Culture$34kRecreation & Sports$10kHealth$3k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $7k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $40k
$3,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$412k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN$40,000
DOOR COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY$3,000
THE WEIDNER CENTER$2,500
NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC$1,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%DESTINATION STURGEON BAY: $10k → 8%THE WEIDNER CENTER: $3k → 10%DOOR COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $3k → 8%THE WEIDNER CENTER: $3k → 10%THE WEIDNER CENTER: $3k → 10%THE WEIDNER CENTER: $3k → 10%THE WEIDNER CENTER: $3k → 10%UNTITLED TOWN CO: $5k → 10%GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN: $40k → 10%GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN: $40k → 10%GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN: $40k → 10%GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN: $21k → 10%GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN: $15k → 10%GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN: $15k → 10%GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN: $15k → 10%GREEN BAY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NWTC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NWTC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%GREEN BAY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NWTC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NWTC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%GREEN BAY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%GREEN BAY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NWTC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $10k → 10%NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $5k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $5k → 10%NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM: $5k → 10%CENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY: $10k → 10%NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $5k → 10%CENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY: $10k → 10%ADULT AND TEEN CHALLENGE OF NORTHEASTERN WISCONSIN: $3k → 10%CENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY: $10k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $1k → 10%CENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY INC: $10k → 10%NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $1k → 10%CENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY INC: $10k → 10%SALVATION ARMY: $1k → 10%KENNEDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: $5k → 10%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$372k · 8 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue -4% since the first grant, against -77% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$372k
$28k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-4%
-77%

Still filing today

63%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $3k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentEducationArts & CultureOther
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

  • GB
    GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN INC
    7× · 2017–2025 · $186k · revenue -39%
  • NW
    NORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $50k · revenue +42%
  • CF
    CENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY INC
    5× · 2018–2022 · $50k · revenue +16%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • KE
    KENNEDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
    one grant, 2018 · $5k
  • UT
    Untitled Town Co
    one grant, 2017 · $5k · revenue -77%
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
04the grantee network

7 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. 7 of the 14 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/7
Grantees still filing
3/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN INC: $186,000 · EnvironmentGREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN INCBAIRD CREEK PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 · EnvironmentBAIRD CREEK PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INCCENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY INC: $50,000 · OtherCENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY INCGREEN BAY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $40,000 · OtherGREEN BAY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS EDUCATION…THE WEIDNER CENTER: $12,500 · OtherTHE WEIDNER CENTERIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientSALVATION ARMY: $7,000 · OtherKENNEDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: $5,000 · OtherUntitled Town Co: $5,000 · OtherNEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM: $5,000 · Other+2 more: $5,500 · OtherNORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · EducationNORTHEAST WISC…THE NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $11,000 · Arts & Culture
Environment$201,000Other$140,000Education$50,000Arts & Culture$11,000

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 budgetGREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN INC: $186,000 over 7y, 1.2% of budgetNORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 5y, 0.7% of budgetCENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY INC: $50,000 over 5y, 3.9% of budgetBAIRD CREEK PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC: $15,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetTHE NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC: $11,000 over 3y, 0.9% of budgetUntitled Town Co: $5,000 over 1y, 3.1% 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 GREEN BAY BOTANICAL GARDEN INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTHEAST WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CENTER FOR CHILDHOOD SAFETY INC ↗
  • Who funds BAIRD CREEK PRESERVATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THE NEVILLE PUBLIC MUSEUM FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Untitled Town Co ↗
  • Who funds DOOR COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗

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.

George Kress Foundati…Greater Green Bay Com…Green Bay Packers Fou…Wisconsin Public Serv…Community Foundation …Wochinske Family Foun…Robert and Betty Meye…John and Engrid Meng …American Online Givin…Amazonsmile Foundation
George Kress Foundation IncWI17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: George Kress Foundation Inc · Greater Green Bay Community Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Wisconsin Public Service Foundation · Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region Inc · Wochinske Family Foundation Inc · Robert and Betty Meyer Family Foundation · John and Engrid Meng Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Schanock Family Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Schanock Family 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%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 14 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 Schanock 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