Skip to content
Chicago Food Policy Action Council at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Chicago Food Policy Action Council

The Organization facilitates and informs the development of and advocacy for responsible policies improving the food sovereignty of Chicago residents as they have power and control to determine culturally appropriate, nutritionally sound and affordable food grown using environmentally sustainable practices.

$736k
Granted FY2024still arriving
13
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$168k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2024.

Food & Nutrition$2.4MPublic Benefit$337kCommunity Improvement$216kEmployment$179kHousing & Shelter$137kArts & Culture$56kPhilanthropy$42kHuman Services$38kOther$0
02FY2024 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k2 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $213k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $497k
$45,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$1.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ChiFresh Kitchen$168,450
North Lawndale Greening Committee$80,000
Food Hero L3C$67,540
Chicago Urban Farm Solutions$64,000
Southside Market Co-op$62,454
Zumwalt Acres Farm$54,625
Roots Eggs and Greens$45,000
Sunflower Soule Farm llc$44,000
Phoenix Bean LLC$42,000
Adelante Center for Entrepreneurship$42,000
Windy City Mushroom$40,000
West Michigan Sustainable Business$8,000
CultivateKC$8,000
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 (FY21–23, $179k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Centro de Trabajadores Unidos: $145k → 14%Centro de Trabajadores Unidos: $34k → 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.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.5M · 5 repeat orgs$1.0M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +433% since the first grant, against +65% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 10 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
16

Total granted

$2.5M
$595k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+433%
+65%

Still filing today

40%
56%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 39% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $445k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’20’21’22’23’24
Food & NutritionEnvironmentPhilanthropyHuman ServicesArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementOther
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

  • CK
    ChiFresh Kitchen Cooperative
    5× · 2020–2024 · $1.8M
  • OPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION
    3× · 2021–2023 · $337k · revenue -100%
  • CD
    CENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS
    2× · 2021–2023 · $179k · revenue +433%

Funded once

  • UG
    URBAN GROWERS COLLECTIVE INC
    one grant, 2021 · $99k · revenue +6%
  • ES
    EIGHTEENTH STREET DEVELOPMENT CORP
    one grant, 2021 · $72k · revenue +69%
  • B1
    BYP 100 Chicago
    one grant, 2021 · $56k
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
Green Chicago Restaurant Coalition

Green Chicago Restaurant Coalition's Guaranteed Green Sustainability Education Program educates foodservice operators about assessing the present state of their operation's environmental sustainability and helps them to develop a plan to…

—
2
Chicago's Green City Market Program

Green city market is securing the future of food by deepening support for sustainable farmers, educating our community, and expanding access to locally-grown food.

Food & Nutrition
3
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
4
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

—
5
Co-Op Ed Center Nfp

The CO-OP ED Center NFP is an organization committed to building democratic worker-owned businesses in Chicagoland that contribute to a strong local economy and invest in community development. Its a purpose is to train, develop and…

Employment
6
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
7
Angelic Organics Learning Center Inc

At farmers rising, we lift up the people doing local and regenerative farming.

Food & Nutrition
8
Industrial Council of Nearwest Chicago

Strengthen companies in the kinzie industrial corridor and facilitate economic and community development by providing services and incubator space.

—
9
Chicago United for Equity

Connecting and amplifying the power of individuals to build a just, equitable, and inclusive city.

Civil Rights
10
Greater Southwest Development Corp

The greater southwest development corporation is the catalyst for creating and maintaining a vital greater southwest chicago community. empowering, building, and sustaining development raises the quality of life for our neighborhood…

Community Improvement
11
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
12
Open Center for the Arts

To provide a space where all can come together to share, showcase, and refine their artistice talents while connecting their growth to the community.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is American Indian Center; the most unlike its peers is West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the 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 31 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/16
Grantees still filing
9/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ChiFresh Kitchen Cooperative: $1,825,913 · OtherChiFresh Kitchen CooperativeFood Hero L3C: $101,540 · Other+19 more: $734,979 · Other+19 moreOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $336,500 · PhilanthropyOPENCOLLEC…URBAN GROWERS COLLECTIVE INC: $98,600 · Food & NutritionGROW GREATER ENGLEWOOD INC: $47,500 · Food & NutritionAdelante Center for Entrepreneurship: $42,000 · Food & NutritionCULTIVATE KANSAS CITY INC: $8,000 · Food & NutritionCENTRO DE TRABAJADORES UNIDOS: $179,000 · Human ServicesNORTH LAWNDALE GREENING COMMITTEE: $80,000 · EnvironmentBLACK OAKS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE RENEWABLE LIVING: $30,000 · EnvironmentAMERICAN INDIAN CENTER: $40,000 · Arts & CultureKenwood Oakland Community Organization: $38,400 · Community Improvement
Other$2,662,432Philanthropy$336,500Food & Nutrition$196,100Human Services$179,000Environment$110,000Arts & Culture$40,000Community Improvement$38,400

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 budgetOPENCOLLECTIVE FOUNDATION: $336,500 over 3y, 1.6% of budgetURBAN GROWERS COLLECTIVE INC: $98,600 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetNORTH LAWNDALE GREENING COMMITTEE: $80,000 over 1y, 50% of budgetGROW GREATER ENGLEWOOD INC: $47,500 over 1y, 1.9% of budgetSOUTHLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NFP: $40,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetKenwood Oakland Community Organization: $38,400 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetBLACK OAKS CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE RENEWABLE LIVING: $30,000 over 1y, 2.4% of budgetLatin Center: $20,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetHOUSING HELPERS INC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetPUERTO RICAN CULTURAL CENTER: $16,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWEST MICHIGAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS FORUM: $8,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCULTIVATE KANSAS CITY INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.4% 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.

ForefrontThe Chicago Community…United Way of Metropo…Greater Chicago Food …John D and Catherine …Grand Victoria Founda…Field Foundation of I…Women's Business Deve…Paypal Charitable Giv…The Bank of America C…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
ForefrontIL28.1× affinity11 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Forefront · The Chicago Community Trust · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Greater Chicago Food Depository · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Grand Victoria Foundation · Field Foundation of Illinois · Women's Business Development Center · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

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 Food Policy Action Council funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chicago Food Policy Action Council. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%4%15%34%60%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Chicago Food Policy Action Council?

    Find your warmest path to Chicago Food Policy Action Council through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 31 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Chicago Food Policy Action Council’s 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