Skip to content

Wisconsin · Nonprofit

THE BRIDGE TO HOPE

THE BRIDGE TO HOPE (Wisconsin) receives grants from 20 organizations whose IRS filings report $827,914 to it, the largest being OTTO BREMER TRUST ($315,000). 12 of them have funded it in more than one year.

Revenue FY2024
$872k
Funders on record
20
Grants received
$828k
Net assets
$1.3M
12/20 repeat funderspeak grant-dependency 18%
01What it does

What The Bridge to Hope does

Mission

To empower victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault to rise above the terror of violence and to educate the community in order to end violence in our society.

As stated on its FY2024 Form 990.

Programs

  1. Shelter program: in 2024 the organization provided emergency shelter to 68 women, 5 males, 2 gender non-conforming, and 64 children for a total of 4,306 safe bed nights. The organization provided needed food, clothing, toiletries, and other needed items in response to their crises. Clients were assigned an advocate who met with them regularly to discuss safety planning, future housing arrangements, and local advocacy (and help with necessary legal forms such as restraining orders). Clients were provided supportive listening 24/7 as they struggled through their trauma and made plans for their future. During 2024, the organization recognized 0 for donated services used in providing program services.

    $297,315 spent
    38% of program spending
  2. Sexual assault victims service project: in 2024 the organization provided sexual assault services to 232 primary and secondary victims of sexual assault. This included accompaniment to forensic exams, criminal support and advocacy, support groups, and information and referrals. The organization accompanied 9 victims to the hospital, as well as advocacy at the chippewa valley child advocacy center for 8 minors who were sexual assault victims.

    $161,631 spent
    21% of program spending
  3. Domestic abuse - group session: throughout 2024 we offered a healing from trauma support group weekly for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and human trafficking. We also had a jail group for both male and female inmates, middle school group and a self-care group at the high school. Along with programming at the boys and girls club. We hold a support group at arbor place for survivors also affected by substance use disorder and a support group at stepping stones for unhoused community members. During 2024, the organization recognized 0 for donated services used in providing program services.

    $87,163 spent
    11% of program spending
  4. The organization also provided the following: legal advocacy: in 2024 the organization accompanied 132 clients in court. The organization also assured that victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault knew their rights, assisted in filling out legal forms, explained legal processes, and accompanied clients to court hearings. Attorney referrals and pro-bono services were sought as necessary. During 2024, the organization recognized 0 for donated services used in providing program services. Outreach: in 2024 the organization gave 108 presentations to 3,765 individuals. 58 presentations were to children/ youth totaling 927 individuals. School presentations focused on safe dating, issues of consent, internet predators, bullying, and healthy relationships. Community involvement: the organization participated in 106 community outreach or public awareness events which included resource tables at uw- stout, dunn county schools, and various summer events in the county. We also coordinate a community crime response team

    $231,507 spent
    30% of program spending

The 4 programs described on its FY2024 Form 990, listed largest first by expense. Program spending in total: $777,616.

02The organization over time

The organization over time

Each line starts at 100 in 2017, so what you read is the shape rather than the size: 150 means half as much again as 2017, 50 means half. The number beside each label in the key is where it ended.

100 = 20172017 Revenue 100 ($944k) Expenses 100 ($623k) Net assets 100 ($836k)2018 Revenue 89 ($840k) Expenses 110 ($684k) Net assets 116 ($972k)2019 Revenue 78 ($733k) Expenses 115 ($716k) Net assets 120 ($1.0M)2020 Revenue 111 ($1.0M) Expenses 137 ($853k) Net assets 143 ($1.2M)2021 Revenue 117 ($1.1M) Expenses 143 ($891k) Net assets 169 ($1.4M)2022 Revenue 111 ($1.0M) Expenses 156 ($971k) Net assets 172 ($1.4M)2023 Revenue 104 ($979k) Expenses 156 ($972k) Net assets 176 ($1.5M)2024 Revenue 92 ($872k) Expenses 160 ($1000k) Net assets 161 ($1.3M)
'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'24
Revenue (92)Expenses (160)Net assets (161)

Balance sheet

Total assets and total liabilities at each year end, in dollars. The largest one-year move in total assets was 2020 to 2021, from $1.3M to $1.5M (+17%).

$1.2M
$1.1M
$1.1M
$1.3M
$1.5M
$1.5M
$1.5M
$1.4M
'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'24
Total assetsTotal liabilities

How it's funded, over time

Each bar is one year's revenue split into where it came from, and every bar is the same height — these are shares, not amounts, so a year that raised twice as much looks the same size. Hover a bar for the split.

2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
ContributionsProgram revenueInvestmentOther

Government-grant reliance: 2017 42% · 2018 52% · 2019 62% · 2020 64% · 2021 60% · 2022 72% · 2023 67% · 2024 59%. Grants only. Government contracts and fees sit inside program revenue.

Surplus & reserves

Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.

$321k
’17
$157k
’18
$17k
’19
$192k
’20
$213k
’21
$75k
’22
$7k
’23
−$128k
’24
1.7
months of
reserve

Leadership and staff

The officers, directors, trustees and key employees listed on each return. Joined and no longer listed compare each filing with the year before, matching people by surname and first initial; a year after a gap, or a roster under three people, has no comparison.

Board chair

Sandi Scott

Board chair

As listed on its FY2024 Form 990.

'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'24
Listed1111141116141514
Joined·+3+3+5+5+2+3+6
No longer listed·3080427
03Who funds it

Who funds it, year by year

2017 → 2023: the base broadened from 4 funders to 8 funders, grant income rose $66k → $118k.

7 of 20 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 17% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.

From the IRS filings of THE BRIDGE TO HOPE’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

How concentrated its funding is

THE BRIDGE TO HOPE leans on a few funders — its largest provides 38% of grant income and the top three 79%; half comes from just 2 funders.

the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left

56% of the income these shares are computed over arrives through pass-through sponsors or from payers whose filings do not say what kind of payment it is. Concentration is still measured over all of it, because the money is real; what it does not support is a claim about how many institutions have chosen to fund THE BRIDGE TO HOPE.

38%
largest funder
79%
top three
~4
effective funders

Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 64% · 2018 35% · 2019 78% · 2020 53% · 2021 64% · 2022 62% · 2023 51% — diversifying over time.

“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

How long its funders stay

67% of THE BRIDGE TO HOPE's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 60% give in more than one year at all.

first grant+1y+2y+3y+4y+5y+6y

Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year. Measured to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving — a funder cannot be counted as lapsed in a year most filers have not reached.

Where its funders are

THE BRIDGE TO HOPE draws 55% of its grant income from funders outside Wisconsin, across 4 states in all.

MN
WI
OH
TX

In-state vs out-of-state, by year

’17
’18
’19
’20
’21
’22
’23
Wisconsin out of state home

Funder states come from each funder’s own filing. $140k arriving through sponsors registered in 7 states is excluded from the map and the split above: a sponsor holds money on a donor’s behalf, so its registered address would place those dollars somewhere no donor need ever have been. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

04Its place in the field

Organizations like THE BRIDGE TO HOPE

Organizations whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over every organization in the US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.

In Wisconsin

Nationally

05Profile & governance

Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.

Where the money goes

78% of spending goes to programs.

Program 78%Management 20%Fundraising 2%

Governance

11
board members
100%
independent
✓Conflict-of-interest policy✓Whistleblower policy✓Document retention✓Board reviewed the 990✓Audited financials

Public support

98%

Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.

Footprint & structure

Files a return copy in 1 state

WI

Screen this organization

A dated, signed PDF of the compliance screen for THE BRIDGE TO HOPE: IRS status (Business Master File, Publication 78, auto-revocation), the OFAC sanctions lists, the Internal Revenue Bulletin, and California registration, with the Rev. Proc. 2018-32 §8.01 reliance elements stated element by element. Generated from the current files at the moment you download it.

A paid feature, included from the $75 plan up. Sign in to download.

Screens are triage, not determinations; a source that cannot be read reports not screened, never clear. Screen this nonprofit · How the screen works · on the API as GET /api/screening/{ein}?format=pdf

Questions and answers

Who funds THE BRIDGE TO HOPE?
THE BRIDGE TO HOPE (Wisconsin) receives grants from 20 organizations whose IRS filings report $827,914 to it, the largest being OTTO BREMER TRUST ($315,000). 12 of them have funded it in more than one year.
How many funders does THE BRIDGE TO HOPE have?
IRS filings report 20 organizations giving $827,914 in grants to THE BRIDGE TO HOPE, 12 of which have funded it in more than one year.
Who is the largest funder of THE BRIDGE TO HOPE?
OTTO BREMER TRUST is the largest funder on record, with $315,000 in grants. The full list of funders is on this page.
How can an organization like THE BRIDGE TO HOPE find more funders?
Start with the funders already giving here, then look at the foundations that back similar organizations in Wisconsin. The funding by cause and by state pages list the largest funders for a given area and how to approach them.

Play a game about who funds Bridge to Hope →

These figures are read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML: this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2017–2024), and the filings of 20 funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. Trends on this page end at FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving; later years are shown and marked, and move no figure. Data on this page was exported October 22, 2026. What this page cannot tell you · view filing