Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation Inc

University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation (UWMF) supports the teaching, research and service missions of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health by promoting the delivery of excellent and innovative patient care by faculty and staff who serve local, regional, national and international populations.

$58M
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$45M
Largest
01What you fund
01

What you funded, over time

By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 68% of University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation Inc’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $77k
  • $250k+2 grants · $57M
$24,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$823M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UW School of Medicine and Public Health$45,320,494
University of Wisconsin Foundation$12,148,726
Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation$35,000
American Family Children's Hospital$24,000
Healthy Classrooms Foundation Inc$18,000
American Pediatric Society$8,500
YWCA Madison$6,000
American Urological Association$5,150
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:

Your human-services grants (FY21–25, $76k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, 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.

area typical 10%Health Native Community Partnerships Inc: $10k → 22%YWCA Madison: $41k → 10%YMCA Madison: $8k → 10%YWCA MADISON: $8k → 10%YWCA Madison: $6k → 10%YWCA Madison: $5k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
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 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

IL
WI
NY
PA
NJ
UT
CO
VA
MD
NM
TX

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.

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.
$561M · 19 repeat orgs$174k to everyone else

19 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 12 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

19
17

Total granted

$561M
$169k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+16%
+17%

Still filing today

74%
65%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $5k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
HealthEducationHuman ServicesOther

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

  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $170M · revenue +39%
  • AC
    ACCESS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $3.8M · revenue +70%
  • BT
    BREAKTHROUGH T1D
    4× · 2017–2020 · $33k · revenue +49%

Funded once

  • WT
    WISCONSIN TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION INITIATIVE INC
    one grant, 2018 · $50k · 100% of their budget
  • TS
    THE SALVATION ARMY
    one grant, 2022 · $10k
  • CB
    COMBAT BLINDNESS INTERNATIONAL INC
    one grant, 2024 · $10k · revenue -23%

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
The Medical College of Wisconsin Inc

The medical college of wisconsin (mcw) is a distinguished leader and innovator in the education and development of the next generation of physicians, (continued in schedule o)

Education
2
Minnesota Medical Association

To be the leading voice of medicine to make minnesota the healthiest state and the best place to practice.

3
University Family Physicians Inc

Engage actively and continuously in medical research, education and training in the practice of medicine in conjunction with the department of family medicine of the indiana university school of medicine and indiana university…

4
Wisconsin Medical Society Inc

To improve the health of the people of wisconsin by supporting and strengthening physicians' ability to practice high quality patient care in a changing environment.

5
American Academy of Neurology

The Academy's mission is to enhance member career fulfillment and promote brain health for all.

Community Improvement
6
Asco Association

Asco association promotes the common business interests of its members by: (1) advocating for policies that improve the quality of cancer care; (2) maintaining the highest standards of oncology medical care through programs supporting…

Community Improvement
7
American Association of Physicists in Medicine

Advancing medicine through excellence in the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. the mission is carried out through driving scientific and clinical innovation in medical physics to improve human health,…

Science & Tech
8
Jaeb Center for Health Research Foundation Inc

Our mission is to expand scientific knowledge and improve public health by designing and conducting world-class clinical trials and epidemiologic research.

Unclassified
9
American College of Rheumatology Inc

The american college of rheumatology is an organization of and for physicians, health professionals, and scientists that advances rheumatology through programs of education, research, advocacy and practice support that foster excellence in…

10
American College of Radiology

The american college of radiology (acr) is organized to advance radiology science, practice and access, improve quality and safety, provide continuing education for radiology and allied professionals, and achieve better outcomes through…

Health
11
Association of American Medical Colleges

Aamc leads & serves the academic medicine community to improve the health of people everywhere.

Education
12
America's Health Insurance Plans Inc

Ahip is the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. ahip's members provide health care coverage, services and solutions to more than 200 million americans. we are committed to market-based solutions and…

Membership Benefit

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Rainbow Project Inc and the most unlike its peers is Perinatal Research Society. 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.

← shrinkinggrowing →↓ leaning in → pulling backsteadyNative Hawaiian Community D…Pregnancy Support ServicesDomestic Violence Crisis Se…Community Arts OrganizationsCancer Support OrganizationsCommunity Health CentersPublic University Foundatio…
the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side
Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 46 years old; the field is 20. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

THE FIELDby orgYOUR GRANTEESby number17%3%<5yr12%0%5–10yr20%17%10–20yr16%7%20–35yr16%38%35–55yr19%35%55yr+
THE FIELDby orgYOUR MONEYby value17%0%<5yr12%0%5–10yr20%0%10–20yr16%0%20–35yr16%8%35–55yr19%92%55yr+

The field is 17% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close 3% lost their exemption, against 8% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund
3%1/37
the rest of the field
8%
3,021/36,489

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.

04the grantee network

27 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 27 of the 37 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
26/27
Grantees still filing
14/27
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

University of Wisconsin Madison — $375,730,639 · OtherUniversity of Wisconsin Madison+17 more — $4,150,778 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION — $170,194,959 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATIONRegional Division Inc — $10,867,636 · EducationRegional Division IncOrthopaedic Research and Education Foundation — $289,000 · HealthFRIENDS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN HOSPITAL AND CLINICS INC — $107,800 · HealthBREAKTHROUGH T1D — $32,950 · HealthAmerican Heart Association Inc — $25,000 · HealthWISCONSIN WOMEN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION INC — $22,500 · HealthEMBOLDEN WI INC — $21,500 · HealthNAMI National — $20,000 · Health+8 more — $61,577 · HealthYWCA MADISON INC — $66,925 · Human ServicesHealthy Native Communities Partnership I — $9,500 · Human Services
Other$379,881,417Education$181,062,595Health$580,327Human Services$76,425

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION — $170,194,959 over 9y, 10.0% of budgetRegional Division Inc — $10,867,636 over 4y, 15% of budgetACCESS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS INC — $3,788,787 over 5y, 2.3% of budgetOrthopaedic Research and Education Foundation — $289,000 over 9y, 0.9% of budgetFRIENDS OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN HOSPITAL AND CLINICS INC — $107,800 over 3y, 7.0% of budgetYWCA MADISON INC — $66,925 over 5y, 0.6% of budgetWISCONSIN TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION INITIATIVE INC — $50,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetBREAKTHROUGH T1D — $32,950 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Heart Association Inc — $25,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE AMERICAN PEDIATRIC SOCIETY INC — $24,500 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetWISCONSIN WOMEN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION INC — $22,500 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetEMBOLDEN WI INC — $21,500 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetTHE ARNOLD GOLD FOUNDATION — $21,000 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetNAMI National — $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetAmerican Liver Foundation — $12,850 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOMBAT BLINDNESS INTERNATIONAL INC — $10,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetPERINATAL RESEARCH SOCIETY — $10,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetNAMI DANE COUNTY INC — $10,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetHealthy Native Communities Partnership I — $9,500 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetFOUNDATION FOR BLACK WOMEN'S WELLNESS INC — $7,577 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE RAINBOW PROJECT INC — $6,500 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetAMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION — $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN VISION AND OPHTHALMOLOGY — $5,750 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetAMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INC — $5,150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S THEATER OF MADISON INC — $5,134 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetRAPE CRISIS CENTER INC — $5,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetMEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE — $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budget
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.

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.

Madison Community FoundationWI25.7× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Madison Community Foundation · The Roots and Wings Foundation Inc · Alliant Energy Foundation Inc · Madison Gas and Electric Foundation Inc · Meriter Health Services Inc · United Way of Dane County Inc · Green Bay Packers Foundation · The Evjue Foundation Inc · Ascendium Education Solutions Inc · Madison Rotary Foundation · The Oscar Rennebohm Foundation Inc · Endres Manufacturing 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 University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation Inc 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
202122232425
no gov · 30%1%5%11%20%your share of their income ↑0%23%45%68%90%share of the org’s income from governmentmedian 0%
  • American Urological Association Education and Research Inc0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get no government money at all
10report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–90%
typical government reliance, FY2025

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.

On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 37 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

More from the funding graph