Skip to content
Chicago Cares Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Chicago Cares Inc

Chicago Cares, Inc.

$56k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2023 to 2024.

Community Improvement$218kArts & Culture$18kHousing & Shelter$15kHealth$15kEmployment$15kEnvironment$10kCrime & Legal$10kYouth Development$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PHALANX FAMILY SERVICES$15,000
Team Englewood$10,000
Northwest Side Community Deve$10,000
Southwest Organizing Project$10,000
Logan Square Neighborhood A$10,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY23–25, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 75% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Illinois Workers in Action: $10k → 8%PHALANX FAMILY SERVICES: $15k → 14%PHALANX FAMILY SERVICES: $15k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 71% of Chicago Cares Inc’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 97% of the giving stays in IL; by stated purpose, 29%.

Chicago Cares Inclessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

72%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$288k · 6 repeat orgs$114k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +33% since the first grant, against +15% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
11

Total granted

$288k
$114k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+33%
+15%

Still filing today

100%
91%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’23’24’25
Community ImprovementArts & CultureHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterPublic BenefitYouth DevelopmentOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • SO
    SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT
    3× · 2023–2025 · $95k · revenue +72%
  • NS
    NORTHWEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR
    3× · 2023–2025 · $41k · revenue +43%
  • LS
    Logan Square Neighborhood Association
    3× · 2023–2025 · $40k · revenue +33%

Funded once

  • SC
    SINAI COMMUNITY INSTITUTE INC
    one grant, 2024 · $15k · revenue +15%
  • NL
    NORTH LAWNDALE COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL INC
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
  • SP
    Serving People with a Mission
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Community Desk Chicago

Community Desk Chicago ("the Desk") is an Illinois 501 (C)(3) nonprofit whose mission is to advance equitable economic prosperity in collaboration with historically under-resourced communities. The Organization serves as a help desk and…

Community Improvement
2
Chicago Workers' Collaborative Nfp

Chicago Workers' Collaborative's mission is to promote full employment and equality for the lowest wage-earners, primarily temporary staffing workers, in the Chicago region through leadership and skills training, critical assistance and…

Education
3
Local Economic and Employment Development Council Inc

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.

Employment
4
Alianza Leadership Institute

The Alliance of the SouthEast (ASE) builds the capacity of leaders, organizers, and associations that carry out community and social change. We envision a powerful grassroots base that impacts decision makers and wins real improvements in…

Human Services
5
Southwest Collective

Provide an open forum for southwest side residents to voice their concerns, hear new perspectives from their neighbors, learn about existing public resources, launch economic, educational, and

Community Improvement
6
Enlace Chicago

Enlace Chicago convenes, organizes, and builds the capacity of little village stakeholders to confront systemic inequities and barriers to economic and social access. Enlace Chicago is dedicated to making a positive difference in the lives…

Community Improvement
7
I Grow Chicago Nfp

The mission of I Grow Chicago is to grow Englewood from surviving to thriving through community connection, skill building, and opportunity.

—
8
South East Chicago Commission

SECC collaborates with other University of Chicago businesses and organizations to foster a spirit of community and to enhance ongoing quality of life across neighborhoods it serves

—
9
Latino Union of Chicago

Latino Union works to defend the rights and dignity of contingent workers, including the right to immigrate, work, live free of oppression and violence, and provide for oneself and one's family.

Human Services
10
Heal Chicago

To strengthen communities through educational dialogue, leadership development, emotional resilience, and intercultural competence programs that help people bridge differences and build trust.

Public Benefit
11
West Side Forward

WSF asserts that to transform Chicago's West Side the focus must

Employment
12
Live Free Chicago

Live Free Illinois is a statewide organization partnering with over 120 congregations and directly impacted individuals to build safer more equitable communities across Illinois. Operating at the intersection of criminal justice reform and…

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwest Side Community Development Cor; the most unlike its peers is Reading Between the Lines Nfp. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

16 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 16 of the 17 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
9/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT: $95,000 · Community ImprovementSOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECTSouth Shore Chamber Community Development Corp: $42,500 · Community ImprovementSouth Shore Chamber Community Development CorpLogan Square Neighborhood Association: $40,000 · Community ImprovementLogan Square Neighborhood AssociationTeamwork Englewood Inc: $40,000 · Community ImprovementTeamwork Englewood IncSINAI COMMUNITY INSTITUTE INC: $15,000 · Community ImprovementSINAI COMMUNITY INSTITUTE INCNORTH LAWNDALE COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL INC: $15,000 · Community ImprovementNORTH LAWNDALE COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL INCNORTHWEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR: $40,600 · Housing & ShelterNORTHWEST S…PHALANX FAMILY SERVICES: $30,000 · Human ServicesPHALANX FAM…ILLINIOS WORKERS IN ACTION: $10,000 · Human ServicesILLINIOS WO…18TH STREET CASA DE CULTURA NFP: $10,000 · Arts & CultureFORWARD MOMENTUM CHICAGO: $8,000 · Arts & CultureServing People with a Mission: $10,000 · Public BenefitCHICAGO MOBILE MAKERS: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $10,000 · PhilanthropyREADING BETWEEN THE LINES NFP: $10,000 · OtherST AGATHA PARISH: $10,000 · OtherURBAN GROWERS COLLECTIVE INC: $5,608 · Other
Community Improvement$247,500Housing & Shelter$40,600Human Services$40,000Arts & Culture$18,000Public Benefit$10,000Youth Development$10,000Philanthropy$10,000Other$25,608

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT: $95,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetSouth Shore Chamber Community Development Corp: $42,500 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetNORTHWEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR: $40,600 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetLogan Square Neighborhood Association: $40,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetTeamwork Englewood Inc: $40,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetPHALANX FAMILY SERVICES: $30,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSINAI COMMUNITY INSTITUTE INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNORTH LAWNDALE COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL INC: $15,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetCHICAGO MOBILE MAKERS: $10,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budget18TH STREET CASA DE CULTURA NFP: $10,000 over 1y, 5.6% of budgetOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetREADING BETWEEN THE LINES NFP: $10,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetILLINIOS WORKERS IN ACTION: $10,000 over 1y, 8.3% of budgetFORWARD MOMENTUM CHICAGO: $8,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetURBAN GROWERS COLLECTIVE INC: $5,608 over 1y, 0.2% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Chicago Community…United Way of Metropo…ForefrontJohn D and Catherine …Local Initiatives Sup…University of Chicago…Field Foundation of I…Robert R McCormick Fo…Polk Bros Foundation …The Allstate Foundati…The Bank of America C…Fidelity Investments …
The Chicago Community TrustIL28.5× affinity14 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Forefront · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · University of Chicago Medical Center · Field Foundation of Illinois · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · The Allstate Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Chicago Cares Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chicago Cares Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 17 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Chicago Cares’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home