· Public charity
Wisconsin Badger State Sheriffs Association Inc
To enhance and protect the constitutional office of sheriff and to be a resource for the seventy-two wisconsin county sheriffs so that they may better protect those they are elected to serve.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 100% of WISCONSIN BADGER STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION 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.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 15 grants below total $258,397 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $269,397 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $11,000 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $22k
- $10k–50k11 grants · $177k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| YANCEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT | $60,000 |
| WOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT | $25,000 |
| WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | $17,273 |
| SHAWANO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT | $15,693 |
| ROCK COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT | $15,693 |
| ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT | $15,693 |
| MILWAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN | $15,693 |
| CHIPPEWA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT | $15,693 |
| ASHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT | $15,517 |
| OZAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT | $15,514 |
| WAUKESHA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT | $13,000 |
| LA CROSSE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN | $11,788 |
| CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT | $9,823 |
| DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT | $6,633 |
| SHEBOYGAN COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT | $5,384 |
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.
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 78% of your 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.
0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2022–2025.
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 2022–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 0 of the 68 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.
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: Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources Inc · Greater Milwaukee 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.