Skip to content
Wisconsin Badger State Sheriffs Association Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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.

$269k
Granted FY2025still arriving
15
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

Crime & Legal$1.7M
02FY2025 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 15 grants below total $258,397, the rows itemized in this filing. The $269,397 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $11,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $22k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $177k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $60k
$15,693
Median grant
2
States reached
$393k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YANCEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT$60,000
WOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT$25,000
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE$17,273
CHIPPEWA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT$15,693
SHAWANO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT$15,693
ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT$15,693
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN$15,693
ROCK COUNTY SHERIFF 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
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%ST CROIX COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $24k → 5%WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTME: $23k → 6%GREEN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $24k → 7%OUTAGAMIE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $29k → 7%KEWAUNEE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $25k → 8%COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $28k → 8%JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $29k → 8%PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $56k → 9%IOWA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $23k → 9%DODGE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $33k → 9%OCONTO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 9%TREMPEALEAU COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTM: $34k → 9%PEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARMENT: $29k → 9%SAUK COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $26k → 9%BUFFALO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 10%KENOSHA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $25k → 10%BROWN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $22k → 10%PORTAGE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $46k → 10%LAFAYETTE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $29k → 11%GREEN LAKE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTME: $29k → 11%MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $29k → 11%DUNN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $28k → 11%MARATHON COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $24k → 11%WAUPACA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $24k → 11%WOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: $25k → 11%FLORENCE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $34k → 11%IRON COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $30k → 11%WINNEBAGO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $25k → 11%CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $24k → 11%TAYLOR COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $27k → 11%WASHBURN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $23k → 12%MARINETTE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $28k → 12%ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $20k → 12%BURNETT COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 12%MARQUETTE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $29k → 12%LANGLADE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 12%PRICE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $27k → 12%JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $31k → 13%CLARK COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 13%GRANT COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 13%RUSK COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $40k → 13%MONROE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 14%FOREST COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $27k → 14%JUNEAU COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $26k → 14%WAUSHARA COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 15%SAWYER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT: $29k → 15%MENOMINEE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMEN: $26k → 24%YANCEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: $60k → 15%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
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.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its field
04the grantee network

0 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2022–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2022 to 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
0/0
Grantees still filing
0/0
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

East Yancey Water and Sewer District: $60,000 · Other+67 more: $1,662,247 · Other+67 more
Other$1,722,247

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Greater Wisconsin Age…Greater Milwaukee Fou…
Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources IncWI30.5× affinity12 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources Inc · Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 68 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its 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.

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

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Wisconsin Badger State Sheriffs Association’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home