· Private foundation
Thomas and Nancy Florsheim Family Foundation
Its FY2019 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 FY2017–2019.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2019
- Under $10k49 grants · $62k
- $10k–50k9 grants · $177k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $316k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND | $202,054 |
| UNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE | $63,744 |
| GREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION | $50,000 |
| MILWAUKEE COLLEGE PREP SCHOOL | $30,000 |
| LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND | $30,000 |
| COLLEGE POSSIBLE | $25,000 |
| INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE | $21,000 |
| DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS | $21,000 |
| NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC) | $15,000 |
| WISCONSIN LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND | $15,000 |
| MIAD MILWAUKEE INSTITUTE OF ARTS & DESIGN | $10,000 |
| EARTHJUSTICE | $10,000 |
| MILWAUKEE EXCELLENCE CHARTER SCHOOL | $7,000 |
| NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCES SERVICE | $5,000 |
| CARMEN SCHOOLS OF TECHNOLOGY | $5,000 |
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 (FY17–18, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +62% since the first grant, against +29% for the ones you funded once.
62 repeat relationships — 54 still active in FY2019, 8 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2019 (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 FY2019, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k 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
- LOLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND3× · 2017–2019 · $110k · revenue +353%
- CPCOLLEGE POSSIBLE INC3× · 2017–2019 · $75k · revenue +79%
- IRInternational Rescue Committee INC3× · 2017–2019 · $62k · revenue +81%
Funded once
- USUNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MILWAUKEE - 2018 SCHOLARSHIPone grant, 2018 · $19k
- LOLEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUNDone grant, 2017 · $15k
- UFUMM FOUNDATIONone grant, 2017 · $10k
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.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
The union of concerned scientists puts rigorous, independent science into action, developing solutions and advocating for a healthy, safe, and just future.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Wildaid's mission is to inspire change and empower the world to protect wildlife and vital habitats from critical threats.
Actionaid is an international network building a just, equitable, and sustainable world in solidarity with communities on the frontlines of poverty and injustice. actionaid usa is the u.s. branch of actionaid international, which works in…
The open markets institute works to help people relearn how to use competition policy to build stronger democracies, more just and equitable societies, more innovative and sustainable economies, and a more secure and peaceful world.
Advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all. the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its science family of journals,…
Friends of the earth strives for a more healthy and just world by defendng the environment and human health while advancing social and economic justice by conducting research and education, transforming the economy so it protects the…
To investigate, research, write, publish, present conferences and teach with respect to global, regional, transboundary, and comparative environmental issues and to make the findings from such activities available to the general public; to…
Water.org's goal is to bring safe water and sanitation to the world through access to small, affordable loans.
Namati, inc. (namati) is dedicated to putting the law in people's hands. we strive to build a just world, in which every one of us can take part in the decisions and demand accountability from the institutions that affect our lives.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Defense Fund and the most unlike its peers is Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 48 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
56 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. 56 of the 83 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 DONOR ADVISED CHARITABLE GIVING INC ↗
- Who funds UNITED WAY OF GREATER MILWAUKEE & WAUKESHA COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds COLLEGE POSSIBLE INC ↗
- Who funds International Rescue Committee INC ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds GREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC ↗
- Who funds THE UWM FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds MILWAUKEE INSTITUTE OF ART & DESIGN INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds EARTHJUSTICE ↗
- Who funds Milwaukee Excellence Inc ↗
- Who funds Nuclear Information and Resource Service ↗
- Who funds FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM INC ↗
- Who funds The Guest House of Milwaukee Inc ↗
- Who funds PARTNERS IN HEALTH A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PUBLIC CITIZEN FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ESPANOLA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds Defenders of Wildlife ↗
- Who funds LOS ALAMOS STUDY GROUP ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC ↗
- Who funds YOUTH SHELTERS & FAMILY SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds Wabash College ↗
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: Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 and Nancy Florsheim Family 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.
- Americares Foundation Inc — 0% of income from government
- Partners in Health a Nonprofit Corporation — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% of income from government
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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Thomas and Nancy Florsheim Family Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Thomas and Nancy Florsheim Family Foundation 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.