· Private foundation
Walter Alexander Foundation Inc
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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k12 grants · $53k
- $10k–50k8 grants · $128k
- $50k–250k3 grants · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| PERFORMING ARTS FOUNDATION | $100,000 |
| COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NC WISCONSI | $85,000 |
| CITY OF WAUSAU | $64,800 |
| SAYNER COMMUNITY CHURCH | $25,000 |
| WAUSAU EAST HIGH SCHOOL | $22,500 |
| CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY | $20,000 |
| WAUSAU WEST HIGH SCHOOL | $15,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $15,000 |
| FORT WILDERNESS MINISTRIES | $10,000 |
| NORTHWOODS CHILDRENS MUSEUM | $10,000 |
| WALLEYE RESTORATION FOUNDATION | $10,000 |
| CENTRAL WISCONSIN CHILDRENS MUSEUM | $5,000 |
| FAITH IN ACTION | $5,000 |
| NEWMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS | $5,000 |
| LITTLE FOREST SCHOOL | $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 (FY18–22, $33k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 69% 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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +21% since the first grant, against +0% for the ones you funded once.
30 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 20 since wound down; 13 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, 41% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $255k 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
- WYWAUSAU YMCA FOUNDATION INC3× · 2018–2020 · $150k · revenue +21%
- LBLEARN BUILD FLY INC2× · 2019–2024 · $65k · revenue +434%
- WNWAUSAU NORDIC SKI CLUB INC3× · 2022–2024 · $13k · revenue +17%
Funded once
- MBMONK BOTANICAL GARDENSone grant, 2023 · $250k
ROGERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2024 · $100k · revenue 0%- BJBOULDER JUNCTION COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2023 · $60k · revenue +132%
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.
The wisconsin wildlife federation has a dual mission to engage in conservation education and to advocate for sound conservation policy.
The museum is an educational institution dedicated to preserving the history and culture of waukesha county.
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 wisconsin maritime museum connects all people with wisconsin's waterways, by engaging and educating the public about wisconsin's maritime history, wisconsin's world war ii submarines, uss cobia, and the great lakes. the wisconsin…
Education museum open to the public
The organization is dedicated to natural resource restoration, preservation and education with youth and community involvement.
To protect environmentally senstive land in waukesha county wisconsin
To preserve, promote, protect, and enhance wisconsin state parks, forests, trails, and recreation areas.
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 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.
To educate visitors of all ages about how and where their food is produced and why agriculture is so important to them.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Easter Seals Wisconsin Inc and the most unlike its peers is Little Forest School Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 14% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 4% 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.
43 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. 43 of the 97 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 WAUSAU YMCA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds PERFORMING ARTS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds ROGERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LEARN BUILD FLY INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY PARTNERS CAMPUS INC ↗
- Who funds BOULDER JUNCTION COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN INC ↗
- Who funds MARATHON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN HISTORICAL FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds WAYLAND ACADEMY ↗
- Who funds THE HAGAR HOUSE INC ↗
- Who funds WAUSAU NORDIC SKI CLUB INC ↗
- Who funds CAMP MANITO-WISH YMCA 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: Community Foundation of North Central Wisconsin Inc · Judd S Alexander Foundation · Ba & Esther Greenheck Foundation · Green Bay Packers Foundation · Dudley Foundation Inc · Dwight and Linda Davis Foundation · Wisconsin Public Service Foundation · Bell Family Charitable Foundation I · Paul & Ruth Schultz Fdn Agy · Community Foundation for the Fox Valley Region Inc · Herbert H Kohl Charities Inc · Dan Storey 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 Walter Alexander 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.
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 Walter Alexander Foundation Inc?
Find your warmest path to Walter Alexander Foundation Inc 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.