Skip to content
Scott & Kathryn Happ Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Scott & Kathryn Happ 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.

$548k
Granted FY2025still arriving
16
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Human Services$1.0MEducation$556kHealth$319kAnimals$57kCommunity Improvement$55kRecreation & Sports$46kPhilanthropy$25kArts & Culture$6kOther$0
02FY2025 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k9 grants · $28k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $70k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $200k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$5,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$15M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
META HOUSE$250,000
LYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION$100,000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION$100,000
SPANISH PEAKS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$25,000
CHILDREN'S WISCONSIN FOUNDATION$25,000
WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY$10,000
NATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION$10,000
LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY$5,000
TURNING POINT CENTER OF CHITTENDEN COUNTY$5,000
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES$5,000
NEXT DOOR$5,000
MILWAUKEE PBS$2,000
NATIONAL BRAIN TUMOR SOCIETY$1,854
LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY (LIGHT THE NIGHT)$1,800
MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER (CYCLE FOR SURVIVAL)$1,800
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 (FY24–24, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $2k → 14%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

VT
MT
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
CO
VA
NC
DC
TX
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.
$2.0M · 13 repeat orgs$43k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +13% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

13 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
12

Total granted

$2.0M
$29k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
0%

Still filing today

77%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $14k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
HealthAnimalsRecreation & SportsEducationHousing & ShelterInternationalOther
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

  • META HOUSE INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $1.0M · revenue +49%
  • LS
    LYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION
    3× · 2023–2025 · $225k · revenue +23%
  • WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY
    5× · 2021–2025 · $48k · revenue +10%

Funded once

  • CS
    CONSERVATIVE SYNAGOGUE ADATH ISRAEL OF RIVERDALE
    one grant, 2023 · $6k
  • CU
    Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy
    one grant, 2023 · $5k · revenue -19%
  • WF
    WOMEN FOR MACC INC
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue 0%
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
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Fdn Group

Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.

—
2
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Leadership in the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer through excellence, vision and cost effectiveness in patient care, outreach programs, research, and education.

Health
3
The Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Inc

Susan g. komen has an unmatched, comprehensive 360-degree approach to fighting breast cancer across all fronts and supporting millions of people in the u.s. and in countries worldwide. we advocate for policies to protect patients, drive…

Health
4
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc

The mission of dfci is to provide expert, compassionate, and equitable care to children, adults, and their families, while advancing the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, cure, and prevention of cancer and related diseases. we train new…

Health
5
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Fred hutch cancer center ("fred hutch") unites innovative research and compassionate care to prevent and eliminate cancer and infectious disease. continued on schedule o

Health
6
New York Genome Center Inc

Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.

Health
7
Marc Lustgarten Pancreatic Cancer Foundation

The lustgarten foundation is the largest private funder of pancreatic cancer research in the world. see schedule o.the lustgarten foundation is boldly leading the way through hope and innovation, turning fear into action through education…

Human Services
8
Children's Health Care

We champion the health needs of children and families. we are committed to improving children's health by providing the highest-quality, family centered care, advanced through research and education.

Health
9
Targeting Resistance in Cancer Cooperative
Health
10
The Johns Hopkins Hospital

For more than 125 years, the mission of the johns hopkins hospital has been to lead the world in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and to train tomorrow's great physicians, nurses and scientists. above all, we aim to provide the…

Health
11
Management Sciences for Health Inc

(msh) saves lives and improves the health of the world's poorest (see schedule o) and most vulnerable people by closing the gap between knowledge and action in public health.

International
12
University of Minnesota Physicians

University of minnesota physicians serves as the integrated group practice for the university of minnesota medical school full-time faculty to provide the highest quality healthcare to patients and their families.university of minnesota…

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is March of Dimes Inc; the most unlike its peers is Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Foundation. 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

21 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. 21 of the 31 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)
20/21
Grantees still filing
11/21
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

META HOUSE INC: $1,010,000 · OtherMETA HOUSE INCCHILDREN'S WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $95,000 · OtherCHILDREN'S WISCONSIN FOUNDATION+16 more: $82,166 · Other+16 moreUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $500,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOU…LYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $225,000 · Housing & ShelterLYNN SAGE BR…American Heart Association Inc: $35,000 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $15,400 · HealthCitizens United for Research in Epilepsy: $5,000 · Health+2 more: $2,830 · HealthWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $47,500 · AnimalsHumane World for Animals Inc: $7,000 · AnimalsTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $2,000 · AnimalsSPANISH PEAKS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $55,000 · Community ImprovementTURNING POINT CENTER OF CHITTENDEN COUNTY INC: $5,000 · Recreation & SportsNEXT DOOR FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · Recreation & Sports
Other$1,187,166Education$500,000Housing & Shelter$225,000Health$58,230Animals$56,500Community Improvement$55,000Recreation & Sports$10,000

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 budgetMETA HOUSE INC: $1,010,000 over 5y, 2.6% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION: $500,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetLYNN SAGE BREAST CANCER FOUNDATION: $225,000 over 3y, 3.7% of budgetSPANISH PEAKS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $55,000 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $47,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc: $35,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL RAMAH COMMISSION INC: $30,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $15,400 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetNATIONAL BRAIN TUMOR SOCIETY INC: $7,416 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetHumane World for Animals Inc: $7,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FRIENDSHIP BRIDGE: $5,560 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCitizens United for Research in Epilepsy: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWOMEN FOR MACC INC: $5,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetNEXT DOOR FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $2,050 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMARCH OF DIMES INC: $1,030 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHUNGER TASK FORCE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetMANNA FOOD BANK INC: $500 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.

National Philanthropi…American Endowment Fo…Vanguard Charitable E…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
National Philanthropic TrustPA9.6× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 Scott & Kathryn Happ Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Scott & Kathryn Happ Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%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
    1get 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 Scott & Kathryn Happ Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Scott & Kathryn Happ 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.

    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 31 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 Scott & Kathryn Happ’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