Loading…
· Public charity
UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S SERVICES OF
At rooted & rising, we envision a neighborhood where every resident is deeply connected to the community, where our shared roots run deep, and where together we meet the community at the level of their needs.
$311k
Granted FY2024
9
Grants
1
Communities
$51k
Largest
01What you fund
01
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 44% of UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S SERVICES OF’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.
02FY2024 · 9 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k8 grants · $260k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $51k
$31,168
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
- SHERMAN PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC$51,284
- VIA CDC$41,288
- RIVERWORKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION$38,876
- NEAR WEST SIDE PARTNERS$35,944
- DOMINICAN CENTER FOR WOMEN INC$31,168
- SOUTHSIDE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE$29,000
- WALNUT WAY CONSERVATION CORP$28,636
- MILWAUKEE CHRISTIAN CENTER$28,422
- CLARKE SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE$26,348
02The need
03
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.
show:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 17% — the area typically sits at 17%. 100% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
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; 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, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
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.
100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$818k · 9 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else
9 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down.
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
9
0
Total granted
$818k
$0
Still filing today
100%
0%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
Community ImprovementHousing & ShelterOther
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
- SPSHERMAN PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC3× · 2022–2024 · $146k · revenue +57%
RIVERWORKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION3× · 2022–2024 · $134k · revenue +114%- NWNEAR WEST SIDE PARTNERS3× · 2022–2024 · $98k · revenue +351%
Funded once
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
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.
1
Westside Community Development Corp
Community Improvement
2
Downtown Development Corporation
—
3
Del Norte Neighborhood Development
To create and preserve low income housing and other opportunities for underserved households, including those that are low and moderate income, spanish-speaking and those with special needs. the core values state that all persons, without…
Housing & Shelter
4
Westbrook Development Corporation
—
5
North Brooklyn Development Corp
North brooklyn development corporation was formed to assist,promote, encourage and stimulate the construction and/or rehabilitation of residential buildings in blighted or underdeveloped areas of brooklyn,ny
Human Services
6
The Midtown Community Development
Philanthropy
7
Madison Development Corporation
To coordinate the activities of the public and private sectors so as to constructively use the resources of each to achieve greater madison and dane county wide economic growth, to provide high-quality affordable workforce housing and…
Community Improvement
8
South Wedge Planning Committee Inc
The organization is committed to helping build a community in the south wedge while encouraging a full range of housing and business opportunities and promoting a diverse, historically significant, and commercially viable urban village.
—
9
West Community Economic Development Corp
To create a destination that promotes and supports enterpreneurs, and providessmall business support, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development.
Community Improvement
10
Near West Side Community
To provide economic development by providing safe and affordable housing, housing counseling, employment referrals and training opportunities. organization also develops and manages properties in an effort to meet the needs of the…
—
11
Westside Neighborhood Developm
Community development via first time home ownership programs, security and emergency home repairs. assisting low income families with affordable rental properties.
Community Improvement
12
Shaker Square Area Development Corp
To provide leadership and action needed to foster well maintained, economically strong neighborhoods to the greater Shaker Square residents and merchants.
Community Improvement
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Near West Side Partners Inc and the most unlike its peers is Riverworks Development Corporation. 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, every filing reconciled, 2017–2024.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
8/9
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Other$360,890Community Improvement$314,818Housing & Shelter$142,058
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 SHERMAN PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds RIVERWORKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds NEAR WEST SIDE PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds VIA CDC ↗
- Who funds CLARKE SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE ↗
- Who funds MILWAUKEE CHRISTIAN CENTER ↗
- Who funds DOMINICAN CENTER FOR WOMEN INC ↗
- Who funds WALNUT WAY CONSERVATION CORP ↗
- Who funds SOUTHSIDE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE ↗
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.
Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation IncWI24.6× affinity9 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Joseph and Vera Zilber Family Foundation Inc · United Way of Greater Milwaukee & · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · Wisconsin Voices Inc · Greater Green Bay Community · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Otto Bremer Trust · 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 organisation UNITED METHODIST CHILDREN'S SERVICES OF 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.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
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. 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.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: CLARKE SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~14 months of operating runway; revenue held over 4 filed years.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
4 years of Form 990 filings, still active.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 464325662 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on CLARKE SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 14 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue held over the period.
- On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 20% of their budget — diversified.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to United Methodist Children's Services Of?
Find your warmest path to United Methodist Children's Services Of through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines