· Private foundation
Thomas a Fox Charitable Trust
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2020–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k11 grants · $54k
- $10k–50k1 grant · $26k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| DOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST | $4,975 |
| Individual grant recipient | $4,975 |
| NORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST | $4,475 |
| ANIMAL RETREAT | $2,000 |
| RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER | $1,000 |
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.
Your 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 your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein 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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
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
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- TMTHE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC4× · 2022–2025 · $103k · revenue +9%
- IBILLINOIS BIRDDOG RESCUE INC6× · 2020–2025 · $38k · revenue +26%
- GWGATHERING WATERS INC6× · 2020–2025 · $31k · revenue +47%
Funded once
- LDLIVING DESERT THEgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue +39%
WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INCone grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue -19%- IGISRAELI GUIDE DOG CENTERone grant, 2023 · $2k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Obtain and manage land of ecological significance.
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…
The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.
To protect, conserve, and enhance wisconsin's natural resources by advocating for and supporting county conservation efforts, for current and future generations.
To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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…
Humane treatement of animals
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Landmark Conservancy Inc and 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.
16 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, 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; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds ILLINOIS BIRDDOG RESCUE INC ↗
- Who funds GATHERING WATERS INC ↗
- Who funds DOOR COUNTY LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST WISCONSIN LAND TRUST INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LANDMARK CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds TAG TREATMENT ACTION GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds LIVING DESERT THE ↗
- Who funds THE ANIMAL RETREAT INC formerly MERIDIAN CANINE RESCUE INC ↗
- Who funds GROUNDSWELL CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds WAUKESHA COUNTY LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗
- Who funds RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds LOVING ALL ANIMALS INC ↗
- Who funds OCCUPAWS GUIDE DOG ASSOCIATION ↗
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.
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
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 organization Thomas a Fox Charitable Trust 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.
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 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.