Loading…
Loading…
Wisconsin · Nonprofit
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM (Wisconsin) is funded by 3 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $432,617 in grants to it, the largest being FUND FOR WISCONSIN SCHOLARS INC ($329,617). 2 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM runs a healthier operating margin than three-quarters of the 11,390 education nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 11,390 education nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2023
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.
1% of WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (49% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 3 of the last 6 reported years ran a deficit.
$10k from 1 funders in 2024, up from $268k and 2 in 2018.
From the IRS filings of WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM leans on a few funders — its largest provides 76% of grant income and the top three 100%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 96% · 2019 40% · 2020 59% · 2021 58% · 2022 72% · 2023 93% · 2024 100% — growing more concentrated.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM is locally rooted: 95% 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.
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.
69% of spending goes to programs.
60%
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 FY2023 (financials across 2018–2023), and the filings of 3funders 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