Loading…
Loading…
Wisconsin · Nonprofit
WATER COUNCIL INC (Wisconsin) is funded by 7 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $401,012 in grants to it, the largest being GREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION INC ($191,500). 6 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WATER COUNCIL INC's revenue fell 31% between 2017 and 2024.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 437 science & tech nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
Government-grant reliance: 2024 46%. Grants only — government contracts and fees sit inside program revenue.
72% of WATER COUNCIL INC’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (70% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 6 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
$35k from 2 funders in 2024, up from $107k and 2 in 2017.
3 of 7 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 55% 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 WATER COUNCIL INC’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
WATER COUNCIL INC leans on a few funders — its largest provides 48% of grant income and the top three 87%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2017 94% · 2018 80% · 2019 64% · 2020 56% · 2021 76% · 2022 80% · 2023 84% · 2024 87% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
WATER COUNCIL INC is locally rooted: 68% of its grant income comes from Wisconsin funders.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 7 funders put you under-funded among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $2.6M on record.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
93% of spending goes to programs.
63%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is 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 7funders 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. view filing