Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Nicholson Charitable Trust

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.

$4k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$4k
Largest
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Religion$52kCrime & Legal$26kHuman Services$7kEnvironment$400International$340Arts & Culture$300Housing & Shelter$100Philanthropy$70Other$0
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$4,160
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FEDERATED CHURCH OF GREEN LAKE$4,160
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 (FY21–23, $136) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Boys Town: $50 → 12%Boys Town: $50 → 12%Boys Town: $36 → 12%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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$86k · 10 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2024, 9 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
10

Total granted

$86k
$4k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+44%
+265%

Still filing today

50%
20%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EnvironmentReligionArts & CultureHuman ServicesOther
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

  • BENEDICT CENTER INC
    7× · 2017–2023 · $26k · revenue +89%
  • HC
    Hope Center Inc
    4× · 2020–2023 · $7k · revenue +87%
  • GL
    GREEN LAKE ASSOCIATION INC
    3× · 2021–2023 · $300 · revenue +44%

Funded once

  • U
    Unmcor
    one grant, 2022 · $2k
  • TU
    Trinity UMC
    one grant, 2023 · $650
  • SA
    Salvation Army
    2× · 2019–2020 · $300
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
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
2
Fund for Lake Michigan Inc

Lake Michigan is one of Wisconsin's greatest assets, and its water is critical to the state's future. The Fund for Lake Michigan is here to help sustain the Lake on behalf of the people and places that depend on it. Our goal is to have a…

Environment
3
Ausable Freshwater Center Incorporated

Advancing science and stewardship of adirondack waters.

Environment
4
Natural Resource Development Association Inc

The natural resource development association supports policies that lead to proper, necessary, and conscientious resource development and conservation. by engaging community leaders, laborers, manufacturers, and job creators in the…

Environment
5
Landmark Conservancy Inc

Landmark conservancy is a nationally accredited, nonprofit conservation organization serving 20 counties across northwest wisconsin. their mission is to conserve wisconsin's natural legacy for everyone...forever.

Environment
6
Washington Forest Law Center

Dedicated to protecting the world's natural environment on behalf of the public by serving as a public interest law firm. refer to schedule o, part iii, line 4a, for list of litigated cases or advocacy work.

—
7
Huron Pines Resource Conservation & Development Council Inc

It is our mission at huron pines to conserve and enhance northern michigan's natural resources to ensure healthy water, protected places and vibrant communities. for alomst 50 years, our work across the forests, lakes and streams of…

Environment
8
Destination Lake Winnebago Region Inc

Dlwr's mission is to market fond du lac, waupun, and the broader lake winnebago region as the ideal destination for a wide range of the traveling public's needs. dlwr will serve as the liaison between the traveler and our region's lodging…

—
9
Southern Wisconsin Land Conservancy

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

Environment
10
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Inc

To guarantee all americans quality places to hunt and fish.

Animals
11
Rensselaer Land Trust Inc

The mission of the rensselaer land trust is to conserve the open spaces, watersheds and natural habitats of rensselaer county for the benefit of our communities and future generations.

—
12
Envision Greater Fond Du Lac Foundation Inc

The mission of envision greater fond du lac foundation, inc. is to inspire our community to work in partnership and cultivate a vibrant economic future.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Fond Du Lac Area Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Father Flanagan's Boys' Home. 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

9 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. 9 of the 21 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)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

BENEDICT CENTER INC: $26,220 · OtherBENEDICT CENTER INCFEDERATED CHURCH OF GREEN LAKE: $25,660 · OtherFEDERATED CHURCH OF GREEN LAKEGethsemane United Church: $23,850 · OtherGethsemane United ChurchHope Center Inc: $7,000 · OtherHope Center Inc+11 more: $6,360 · Other+11 moreGREEN LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $300 · EnvironmentGREEN LAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $100 · EnvironmentTHRASHER OPERA HOUSE CORPORATION: $300 · Arts & CultureFather Flanagan's Boys' Home: $136 · Human ServicesTHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $100 · InternationalFIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH ENDOWMENT TRUST: $25 · Religion
Other$89,090Environment$400Arts & Culture$300Human Services$136International$100Religion$25

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 budgetBENEDICT CENTER INC: $26,220 over 7y, 0.4% of budgetHope Center Inc: $7,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetGREEN LAKE ASSOCIATION INC: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHRASHER OPERA HOUSE CORPORATION: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFather Flanagan's Boys' Home: $136 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREEN LAKE CONSERVANCY INC: $100 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH ENDOWMENT TRUST: $25 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.

  • Who funds BENEDICT CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Hope Center Inc ↗
  • Who funds GREEN LAKE ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds THRASHER OPERA HOUSE CORPORATION ↗
  • Who funds Father Flanagan's Boys' Home ↗
  • Who funds THE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL ↗
  • Who funds GREEN LAKE CONSERVANCY INC ↗
  • Who funds FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH ENDOWMENT TRUST ↗

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.

Vanguard Charitable Endowment ProgramPA9.6× affinity7 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn 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 The Nicholson Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Nicholson Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 The Nicholson Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to The Nicholson Charitable Trust 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 21 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 Nicholson’s filings →

    More from the funding graph