How much did STEINHAUER CHARITABLE FOUNDATION grant in FY2024?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 48% of STEINHAUER 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.

02FY2024 · 24 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k19 grants · $62k
$10k–50k5 grants · $68k

$5,000

Median grant

States reached

$2.1M

Total assets

Largest grants

WI CHAMBER ORCHESTRA$17,500
UNITED WAY OF DANE COUNTY$15,000
UW FOUNDATION$15,000
DANE COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY$10,000
GOOD SHEPHARD LUTHERN CHURCH$10,000
LIONS EYE BANK OF WI$5,000
AGRACE HOSPICECARE FOUNDATION INC$5,000
BIGHORN GOLF CLUB CHARITIES$5,000
WPGA JUNIOR FOUNDATION$5,000
EDGEWOOD HIGHSCHOOL$5,000
OLBRICH BOTANICAL SOCIETY$5,000
WISCONSIN CHAMBER ORCHESTRA$5,000
HEARTLAND FARM SANCTUARY$5,000
GILDA'S CLUB MADISON$5,000
MADISON AREA FOOD PANTRY GARDENS IN$3,000

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:

Your human-services grants (FY17–23, $42k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10% — the area typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

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.

$951k · 31 repeat orgs$161k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +80% since the first grant, against +37% for the ones you funded once.

31 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2024, 24 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$951k

$59k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+80%

+37%

Still filing today

45%

22%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 21% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $102k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Arts & CultureEnvironmentAnimalsHuman ServicesHealthPhilanthropyOther

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

MS
Madison Symphony Orchestra
5× · 2017–2021 · $115k · revenue +28%
WC
Wisconsin Chamber Orchestra
8× · 2017–2024 · $110k · revenue +16%
OB
Olbrich Botanical Society
8× · 2017–2024 · $57k · revenue +64%

Funded once

MY
Madison Youth Arts Center
one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue -76%
OB
OLBRICH BOTANICAL SOCIETY ROOTED AND GROWING
one grant, 2018 · $17k
WY
Wisconsin Youth Symphany Orchestra
one grant, 2019 · $13k

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.

Madison Opera Foundation Inc

Supporting organization of madison opera inc.

Arts & Culture

Madison Art Gallery

—

Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra Endowment

To support the programs of the milwaukee symphony orchestra, inc.

Arts & Culture

Madison Development Corporation

To coordinate the activities of the public and private sectors so as to constructively use the resources of each to achieve greater madison and dane county wide economic growth, to provide high-quality affordable workforce housing and…

Community Improvement

Wisconsin Youth Symphony Orchestras

A supporting organization of the wisconsin youth symphony orchestra, inc.

—

Madison Community Foundation

Madison community foundation stewards local, charitable funds for individuals,nonprofits and businesses. as a trusted philanthropic leader, mcf aims to engage greater madison in philanthropy to advance a more vibrant and equitable…

Philanthropy

Madison Symphony Orchestra Foundation

The foundation was established to administer investments, and to receive support in the form of gifts, grants, and bequests which exclusively benefit the madison symphony orchestra, inc., an organization described in i.r.c. section 509(a).

—

Milwaukee Development Corporation

Regional economic development

Community Improvement

Downtown Madison Inc

Make downtown madison a more inclusive, equitable, vibrant, and economically strong place to live, work, and visit.

—

Madison Youth Choirs Inc

To inspire youth with a choral experience that fosters creativity, reflection, and the exploration of ideas.

—

Madison Community Hospital

Provide health care services to area residents.

Health

Landmark Conservancy Inc

To preserve, protect & enhance the natural & scenic land & water resources of wisconsin & adjacent areas for conservation, recreational & cultural purposes.

Environment

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Madison Children's Museum Inc and the most unlike its peers is Fellowship of Christian Athletes. 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 43 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 18% 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%0/24

the rest of the field

303/4,106

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.

04the grantee network

23 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)

23/23

Grantees still filing

17/23

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$545,916Arts & Culture$310,500Animals$75,000Philanthropy$67,500Environment$65,667Human Services$42,000Community Improvement$6,000

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.

Madison Community FoundationWI30.8× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Madison Community Foundation · Madison Gas and Electric Foundation · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · John J Frautschi Family Foundation Inc · The Evjue Foundation Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Pleasant T Rowland Foundation Inc · United Way of Dane County Inc · John W Thompson and Jane a Bartell · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Terry Family Foundation Inc · Webcrafters-Frautschi Foundation Inc

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 STEINHAUER 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

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%

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: Ed Nebbins Foundation.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

insufficient risk

Limited financial data in public filings.

Track record & reputation

low risk

8 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 815249157 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 Ed Nebbins Foundation, 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

Awaiting reportFinancial stability— Runway not derivable from filings.
WatchSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue contracted over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 16% 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 Steinhauer Charitable Foundation?

Find your warmest path to Steinhauer 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.

STEINHAUER CHARITABLE FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

23 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Steinhauer Charitable Foundation?

More from the funding graph

STEINHAUER CHARITABLE FOUNDATION

What you funded, over time

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

23 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Steinhauer Charitable Foundation?

More from the funding graph