· Private foundation
Tikvah Charitable Trust
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PASADENA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $1,583 |
| CHABAD JEWISH CENTER OF WAUKESHA COUNTY | $1,040 |
| MILWAUKEE JEWISH FEDERATION | $700 |
| LEAVE NO TRACE CENTER FOR OUTDOOR ETHICS | $520 |
| AMERICAN RIVERS | $500 |
| CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL COLORADO | $500 |
| NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $500 |
| EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION OF WATERTOWN | $500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $500 |
| THE BREAD BASKET | $500 |
| JUST TRYAN IT | $500 |
| WESTSIDE GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE OF LA | $334 |
| NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION | $333 |
| Individual grant recipient | $300 |
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 (FY17–24, $4k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 42% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +33% since the first grant, against +5% for the ones you funded once.
58 repeat relationships — 27 still active in FY2025, 31 since wound down; 22 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, 42% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k 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
- LNLEAVE NO TRACE CENTER FOR OUTDOOR ETHICS7× · 2018–2025 · $4k · revenue +21%
- CHChildren's Hospital Colorado Foundation7× · 2017–2024 · $3k · revenue +42%
AMERICAN RIVERS INC4× · 2022–2025 · $2k · revenue +187%
Funded once
- WCWATERTOWN COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONone grant, 2019 · $10k
- JJJUSTIN J WATT FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2017 · $4k · revenue -19%
- AFAMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOMone grant, 2024 · $2k · revenue 0%
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
The purpose of the water research foundation (wrf) is a definitive research organization to advance the science of all things water to better meet the evolving needs of its subscribers and the water sector. to engage exclusively in…
Susan g. komen 's mission is to save lives by meeting the most critical needs in our communities & investing in breakthrough research to prevent & cure breast cancer.
Awf's mission is to ensure wildlife and wild lands thrive in modern africa. we work to equip african governments, institutions, business, and communities with the tools, insights, and support they need to define, own, and realize a…
Project drawdown's mission is to drive meaningful climate action by advancing science-based solutions and strategies. project drawdown's work is focused on three pillars: science - advancing science-based climate solutions and strategies;…
To protect wisconsin's lands, waters, and wildlife by providing funding, leading partnerships, and connecting all people with nature.
To engage and catalyze global seafood supply chains in rebuilding depleted fish stocks and reducing the environmental impacts of fishing and fish farming.
Wmf is the leading independent organization devoted to safeguarding the world's most treasured places to enrich people's lives and build mutual understanding across cultures and communities. the organization is headquartered in new york…
Ocean conservancy unites science, people, and policy to protect our ocean, today and for generations to come.
Our mission is to break down barriers to als research to find effective treatments. by uniting academia, the pharma and biotech industry, government, venture capital, related nonprofits, and the als community, we aim to overcome the…
Founded in 1877, american humane association, dba american humane society (american humane) is committed to ensuring the safety, welfare and well-being of animals. our leadership programs are first to serve in promoting and nurturing the…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Park Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Last Chance Treatment Foundation Corp. 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 37 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 8% 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.
82 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. 82 of the 138 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 MILWAUKEE JEWISH FEDERATION INC ↗
- Who funds LEAVE NO TRACE CENTER FOR OUTDOOR ETHICS ↗
- Who funds Educational Foundation of Watertown Inc ↗
- Who funds JUSTIN J WATT FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Children's Hospital Colorado Foundation ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN RIVERS INC ↗
- Who funds TOMORROWS HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA INC ↗
- Who funds WATERTOWN HUMANE SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds Pasadena Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds HOMELESS CHILDREN'S PLAYTIME PROJECT ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN FRIENDS OF MAGEN DAVID ADOM ↗
- Who funds SARCOMA FOUNDATION OF AMERICA ↗
- Who funds American Heart Association Inc ↗
- Who funds SPECIAL OLYMPICS WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds OPPORTUNITIES INC OF JEFFERSON COUNTY ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CAPITOL HILL CLUSTER SCHOOL PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds WATERORG ↗
- Who funds ROCK RIVER RESCUE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MILWAUKEE ART MUSEUM INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES USA INC ↗
- Who funds MILWAUKEE PUBLIC MUSEUM INC ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ROCK RIVER FREE MEDICAL CLINIC INC ↗
- Who funds Watertown Food Pantry ↗
- Who funds JUST TRYAN IT INC ↗
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 · Emil Ewald Family Foundation Inc · Baird Foundation Inc · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · Green Bay Packers Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · The Bank of America Charitable 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 organization Tikvah 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.
- Children First Inc — 100% of income from government
- Big Brothers Big Sisters of America — 21% of income from government
- Sea Turtle Conservancy — 1% 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.