Skip to content
Wisconsin Council-Society for Human Resource Management at a glance

· Public charity

Wisconsin Council-Society for Human Resource Management

The society's mission is to be the recognized state leader in human resource management by bringing the society closer to home and enhancing the value of shrm membership.

$90k
Granted FY2025still arriving
8
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$11k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its 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, FY2017 to 2025.

Employment$826kCommunity Improvement$19kMembership Benefit$6k
02FY2025 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $67,179, the rows itemized in this filing. The $90,283 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $23,104 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 $10k5 grants · $35k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $33k
$7,508
Median grant
2
States reached
$390k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC$11,021
METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC$10,843
SHRM FOUNDATION INC$10,738
CHIPPEWA VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT$7,508
BLACKHAWK HUMAN RESOURCE ASSOCIATION$7,392
SHEBOYGAN AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT$7,347
ENVISION GREATER FOND DU LAC INC$6,692
GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT$5,638
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 78% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $27k → 6%FOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $16k → 7%JEFFERSON COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION: $6k → 8%SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - DODGE COUNTY: $6k → 9%FOND DU LAC AREA HUMAN RESOURCE ASSOCIATION: $16k → 9%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $45k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $37k → 10%SHRM FOUNDATION INC: $13k → 9%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $27k → 6%FOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $16k → 7%ENVISION GREATER FOND DU LAC INC: $7k → 9%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $20k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $26k → 10%SHRM FOUNDATION INC: $12k → 9%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $22k → 6%FOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $13k → 7%ENVISION GREATER FOND DU LAC INC: $6k → 9%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $20k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $24k → 10%SHRM FOUNDATION INC: $12k → 9%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $16k → 6%FOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $11k → 7%FOND DU LAC AREA ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE: $6k → 9%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $19k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $13k → 10%SHRM FOUNDATION INC: $11k → 9%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $15k → 6%FOND DU LAC AREA HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $5k → 9%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $15k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $33k → 10%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $12k → 6%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $12k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $24k → 10%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $11k → 6%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $12k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $22k → 10%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $10k → 6%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $9k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $20k → 10%METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $5k → 6%GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $6k → 10%GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $11k → 10%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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

99%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$840k · 12 repeat orgs$11k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
2

Total granted

$840k
$11k

Still filing today

58%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Community ImprovementPhilanthropyOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • GM
    GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $209k · revenue +16%
  • SF
    SHRM FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $48k · revenue +22%
  • DL
    DESTINATION LAKE WINNEBAGO REGION INC
    3× · 2017–2019 · $27k · revenue +31%

Funded once

  • SF
    SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT-DODGE COUNTY
    one grant, 2024 · $6k
  • SA
    SHRM-RACINE AND KENOSHA AREA
    one grant, 2018 · $6k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Greater Miami Society for Human Resource Management

Establish and maintain standards of excellence for the human resource practitioner through a variety of services relating to human resource concerns

—
2
Washington State Shrm

To support shrm members in the state of washington with activities and communications which enhance, support chapter leadership, and address state-wide issues in human resource management.

Community Improvement
3
Society for Human Resource Mgt Philadelphia Region Chapter

To keep the organization members and associates informed to keep professional developments and enhance visibility of the human resources professional within the business community.

—
4
The Illinois State Council of Shrm

Ilshrm supports shrm chapters across illinois, representing them to national shrm and helping each reach its potential. a statewide volunteer board advances hr by promoting professionalism, enhancing member value, and coordinating…

Community Improvement
5
Oregon Shrm

The purpose of the oregon shrm (affiliate of the society for human resource management)is to promote the educational and professional development of our members and to promote other non-profit purposes of the society of human resource…

Community Improvement
6
Society for Human Resource Management Shrm-Atlanta Inc

To develop the human resource professional and the awareness of human resource management best practices in the business community via chapter initiatives on:Developing high-performing HR professionals,Encouraging corporate cultures that…

—
7
Society for Human Resource Management

Shrm empowers people and workplaces by advancing hr practices and by maximizing human potential.

Community Improvement
8
National Human Resources Association Orange County Affiliate

To provide an active forum within a supportive environment for strengthening the role of human resource professionals as strategic business leaders and partners.

Community Improvement
9
Michigan Council of the Society for Human Resource Management

To provide opportunities for local & regional shrm chapters to network, share best practices, & provide development opportunities to their attendees acting as a conduit to the society for human resource management (national shrm) which…

Community Improvement
10
Greater Chicago Club Managers Association

The association is a professional association which functions as a chapter of the club managers association of america. the purpose of this association is to promote and advance friendly relationships between and among persons connected…

—
11
Society of Human Resource Professionals

Educate human resource professionals.

Community Improvement
12
Southwest Washington Shrm

To be the premier resource for leadership and development for human resource professionals and organizations within southwest washington. to provide a forum for the personal and professional development of members. to provide an…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Metro Milwaukee Shrm Inc; the most unlike its peers is Destination Lake Winnebago Region Inc. 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

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

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

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 14 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $209,313 · OtherGREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INCMETRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $145,166 · OtherMETRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INCSHEBOYGAN AREA CHAPTER - SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $32,512 · OtherSHEBOYGAN AREA CHAPTER - SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENTDESTINATION LAKE WINNEBAGO REGION INC: $27,185 · OtherDESTINATION LAKE WINNEBAGO REGION INCLA CROSSE AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $20,703 · OtherJEFFERSON COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION: $17,450 · Other+4 more: $37,565 · Other+4 moreGREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER OF THE SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $158,289 · Community ImprovementGREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER OF THE SOCIETY OF …FOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $87,940 · Community ImprovementFOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MAN…BLACKHAWK HUMAN RESOURCES ASSOCIATION: $67,627 · Community ImprovementBLACKHAWK HUMAN RESOURCES ASSOCIATIONSHRM FOUNDATION INC: $47,771 · Philanthropy
Other$489,894Community Improvement$313,856Philanthropy$47,771

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $209,313 over 9y, 22% of budgetGREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER OF THE SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: $158,289 over 9y, 58% of budgetMETRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC: $145,166 over 9y, 34% of budgetFOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC: $87,940 over 7y, 23% of budgetSHRM FOUNDATION INC: $47,771 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetDESTINATION LAKE WINNEBAGO REGION INC: $27,185 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetENVISION GREATER FOND DU LAC INC: $12,886 over 2y, 0.4% of 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.

  • Who funds GREATER MADISON AREA SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds GREEN BAY AREA CHAPTER OF THE SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ↗
  • Who funds METRO MILWAUKEE SHRM INC ↗
  • Who funds FOX VALLEY SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC ↗
  • Who funds BLACKHAWK HUMAN RESOURCES ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds SHRM FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds DESTINATION LAKE WINNEBAGO REGION INC ↗
  • Who funds ENVISION GREATER FOND DU LAC INC ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Wisconsin Council-Society for Human Resource Management funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Wisconsin Council-Society for Human Resource Management. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    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 14 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 Council-Society for Human Resource Management’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