Loading…
Loading…
Wisconsin · Nonprofit
WHITEWATER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION (Wisconsin) is funded by 6 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $145,076 in grants to it, the largest being Network for Good ($55,277). 5 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WHITEWATER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION has grown faster than half of the 1,452 philanthropy nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 1,452 philanthropy nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2025
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.
52% of WHITEWATER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION’s revenue is contributions — about as donation-reliant as the typical peer (84% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 8 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $12k → $38k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
3 of 6 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 74% 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 WHITEWATER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
WHITEWATER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION leans on a few funders — its largest provides 38% of grant income and the top three 91%; 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: 2018 59% · 2019 72% · 2020 64% · 2021 41% · 2022 100% · 2023 39% · 2024 61% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
WHITEWATER COMMUNITY FOUNDATION draws 91% of its grant income from funders outside Wisconsin — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 5 states in all.
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.
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.
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.
98% of spending goes to programs.
83%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2025 (financials across 2018–2025), and the filings of 6funders 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