· Public charity
Center for Community Self-Help
The Centers mission is to create and protect ownership for all, especially people of color, women, rural residents and low wealth families and communities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 10 grants below total $3,300,528 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $4,442,353 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,141,825 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k2 grants · $65k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $474k
- $250k+4 grants · $2.8M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| SelfHelp Ventures Fund | $1,221,584 |
| SelfHelp Credit Union | $819,672 |
| SelfHelp Federal CU | $360,522 |
| Center for Responsible Lending | $360,000 |
| SelfHelp CommDevelopCorp | $223,750 |
| Lawndale Christian Development Corp | $90,000 |
| The Resurrection Project | $90,000 |
| Hope Center Foundation | $70,000 |
| Pee Wee Homes | $40,000 |
| Richmond Heritage FCU | $25,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY24–24, $70k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +122% since the first grant, against +61% for the ones you funded once.
13 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 98% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $70k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- SVSelf-Help Ventures Fund8× · 2017–2024 · $9.9M · revenue +262%
- SCSelf-Help Credit Union8× · 2017–2024 · $2.3M · revenue +122%
- SCSelf-Help Community Development Corp8× · 2017–2024 · $2.2M · revenue +221% · 45% of their budget
Funded once
Communities In Partnershipgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $102k · revenue +670% · 29% of their budget- TKTHE KENAN-FLAGLER BUSINESS SCHOOL FOUNDATIONgraduatedone grant, 2017 · $100k · revenue +80%
- BTBy The Peopleone grant, 2018 · $50k
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To promote economic development and financial literacy for low-income people, people of color, and those who live in economically depressed areas.
The Centers mission is to create and protect ownership for all, especially people of color, women, rural residents and low wealth families and communities.
Provide personnel services and technical assistance for affiliated exempt organizations working to relieve poverty in distressed communities and other charitable activities.
The California Housing Partnership Corporation creates and preserves affordable and sustainable homes for Californians with low incomes by providing expert financial and policy solutions to nonprofit and public partners.
Inner-city housing and economic development focusing on low-income individuals.
North Branch Works is a membership-supported nonprofit neighborhood organization that for more than three decades has promoted balanced, job-creating economic development along the North Branch of the Chicago River.
New Disabled South Rising is the advocacy arm of New Disabled South focusing on poverty and care, criminalization and democracy.
Housing Collaborative makes affordable housing easier to navigate by helping to secure rental housing for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness; and for those who have lost housing due to disaster or displacement. We make it easier…
Conflict resolution and violence prevention assistance to at-risk populations.
Housing Partnerships, Inc creates great communities through direct investments and partnerships.
To improve the lives of disabled people and build strong disability justice and rights movements in the South through research & knowledge building, advocacy & policy change, non-partisan voter engagement, and coalition building.
Promote fair and affordable housing for low income families, free from the vestiges of segregation and discrimination.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Self-Help Ventures Fund and the most unlike its peers is Jessie Ball duPont Religious Charitable & Educational Fund. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 22 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Self-Help Ventures Fund ↗
- Who funds Self-Help Credit Union ↗
- Who funds Self-Help Community Development Corp ↗
- Who funds Center for Responsible Lending ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN WOMEN'S BUSINESS INITIATIVE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds LAWNDALE CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗
- Who funds The Resurrection Project ↗
- Who funds Communities In Partnership ↗
- Who funds THE KENAN-FLAGLER BUSINESS SCHOOL FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds PEE WEE HOMES ↗
- Who funds Hope Center Foundation ↗
- Who funds Institute for Southern Studies Inc ↗
- Who funds United for A Fair Economy Inc ↗
- Who funds CASA ↗
- Who funds Jessie Ball duPont Religious Charitable & Educational Fund ↗
- Who funds Marian Cheek Jackson Center ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Triangle Community Foundation Inc · Z Smith Reynolds Foundation Inc · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Center for Community Self-Help funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.