Skip to content
Thomas a Fox Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Thomas a Fox Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$80k
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$26k
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, FY2020 to 2025.

Environment$156kAnimals$134kEducation$103kHealth$47kPhilanthropy$22k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k11 grants · $54k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $26k
$5,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN$26,000
TREATMENT ACTION GROUP$7,500
ILLINOIS BIRDDOG RESCUE$6,975
GATHERING WATERS$6,650
LANDMARK CONSERVANCY$5,250
WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY$5,000
GROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY$4,975
Individual grant recipient$4,975
DOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST$4,975
NORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST$4,475
ANIMAL RETREAT$2,000
RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER$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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–22, $250) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, 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%OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOC: $250 → 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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$411k · 13 repeat orgs$28k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
8

Total granted

$411k
$22k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+26%
+40%

Still filing today

69%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentAnimalsEducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • TM
    THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $103k · revenue +9%
  • IB
    ILLINOIS BIRDDOG RESCUE INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $38k · revenue +26%
  • GW
    GATHERING WATERS INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $31k · revenue +47%

Funded once

  • LD
    LIVING DESERT THEgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue +39%
  • WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC
    one grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue -19%
  • IG
    ISRAELI GUIDE DOG CENTER
    one grant, 2023 · $2k
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
Southeast Wisconsin Land Conservancy

Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.

Environment
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
Natural Resources Foundation of

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

—
6
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
7
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
8
Mississippi Valley Conservancy Inc

The mission of mississippi valley conservancy is to conserve native habitats and farmlands in the driftless area for the health and well-being of current and future generations.

Environment
9
Wisconsin Association of Lakes Inc

The mission of the wisconsin association of lakes is to conserve, enhance, and restore wisconsin's 15,000 lakes to ensure their sustainability for the benefit and collective use and enjoyment for this and future generations.

Environment
10
West Wisconsin Land Trust Inc

The mission of the west wisconsin land trust, inc. is to preserve western wisconsin's natural character by informing, facilitating, and partnering with private landowners, communities, and local governments to protect valuable land.

—
11
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
12
Missaukee Humane Society

Humane treatement of animals

Animals
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Landmark Conservancy Inc; the most unlike its peers is Illinois Birddog Rescue 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

16 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. 16 of the 24 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)
16/16
Grantees still filing
10/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WI: $82,660 · OtherMEDICAL COLLEGE OF WIIndividual grant recipient: $23,225 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTAG TREATMENT ACTION GROUP INC: $20,500 · OtherTAG TREATMENT ACTION GROUP INCSCHLITZ AUDUBON NATURE CTR: $6,950 · Other+5 more: $4,200 · OtherGATHERING WATERS INC: $31,100 · EnvironmentGATHERING WATERS INCDOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INC: $26,025 · EnvironmentDOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INCNORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST INC: $22,725 · EnvironmentNORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST…LANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC: $21,600 · EnvironmentLANDMARK CONSERVANCY INCLIVING DESERT THE: $15,000 · EnvironmentLIVING DESERT THEGROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC: $4,975 · Environment+2 more: $4,200 · EnvironmentTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC: $103,000 · EducationTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WI…ILLINOIS BIRDDOG RESCUE INC: $37,625 · AnimalsILLINOIS BIRDDOG …WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $23,050 · AnimalsWISCONSIN HUMANE …THE ANIMAL RETREAT INC formerly MERIDIAN CANINE RESCUE INC: $12,000 · AnimalsTHE ANIMAL RETREA…GREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION INC: $21,950 · Philanthropy+1 more: $300 · PhilanthropyOCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOCIATION: $250 · Human Services
Other$137,535Environment$125,625Education$103,000Animals$72,675Philanthropy$22,250Human Services$250

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 budgetTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC: $103,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetILLINOIS BIRDDOG RESCUE INC: $37,625 over 6y, 8.3% of budgetGATHERING WATERS INC: $31,100 over 6y, 0.5% of budgetDOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INC: $26,025 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetWISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY: $23,050 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetNORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST INC: $22,725 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetGREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION INC: $21,950 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetLANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC: $21,600 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetTAG TREATMENT ACTION GROUP INC: $20,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetLIVING DESERT THE: $15,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ANIMAL RETREAT INC formerly MERIDIAN CANINE RESCUE INC: $12,000 over 2y, 3.9% of budgetGROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC: $4,975 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $3,200 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetRIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLOVING ALL ANIMALS INC: $300 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetOCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOCIATION: $250 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

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.

James E Dutton Founda…John C Bock FoundationGreen Bay Packers Fou…Alliant Energy Founda…Baird Foundation IncVanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
James E Dutton Foundation IncWI20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: James E Dutton Foundation Inc · John C Bock Foundation · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · 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 Thomas a Fox Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Thomas a Fox Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–25%
    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 24 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 Thomas a Fox’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