Skip to content
Chicago Public Education Fund at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Chicago Public Education Fund

The CHICAGO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND (the fund) is a nonprofit organization that improves public schools in chicago by investing in the talented educators who lead them.

$1.4M
Granted FY2025still arriving
17
Grants FY2025still arriving
8
States reached
$256k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$2.2MEmployment$112kCommunity Improvement$50k
02FY2025 · 17 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 17 grants below total $1,053,018, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,352,650 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $299,632 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $10k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $212k
  • $50k–250k5 grants · $575k
  • $250k+1 grant · $256k
$25,000
Median grant
8
States reached
$37M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS$256,000
NEW LEADERS INC$219,898
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-CHICAGO$155,500
LEADERSHIP AND DESIGN$90,000
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON$60,000
FOREFRONT$50,000
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY$44,300
CAMBIAR EDUCATION$30,000
HOPEWELL FUND$25,000
LATINO LEADERSHIP PIPELINE$20,000
SURGE INSTITUTE INC$20,000
NATIONAL SAM INNOVATION PROJECT$18,750
LEAP INNOVATIONS$16,500
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES$15,000
THE HUMAN SCHOOLS PROJECT INCORPORATED$12,500
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 (FY25–25, $17k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%LEAP INNOVATIONS: $17k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
IL
NY
MA
CT
CA
KY
DC
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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.2M · 13 repeat orgs$182k to everyone else

13 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

13
3

Total granted

$3.2M
$71k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-5%
+25%

Still filing today

69%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $112k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationPhilanthropyHuman ServicesOther
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

  • LA
    LEADERSHIP AND DESIGN
    3× · 2023–2025 · $221k · revenue +17%
  • NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2023–2025 · $143k · revenue +22%
  • University of Chicago
    2× · 2024–2025 · $20k · revenue +15%

Funded once

  • MC
    MIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $49k · revenue +25%
  • TM
    THE MODERN CLASSROOMS PROJECT INCgraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $15k · revenue +96%
  • AC
    ACERO CHARTER SCHOOLS INC
    one grant, 2021 · $7k · revenue +5%
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
The National Center on Education and the Economy

The Center is dedicated to providing tools the nation needs to lead the world in education & training in a swiftly globalizing world economy.

Public Benefit
2
Leading Educators Inc

Leading educators partners with school systems to build and sustain the conditions, teaching, and leadership to ensure that the students furthest from opportunity succeed in school and in life.

Education
3
The Leadership Academy Inc

Harnessing leadership as a lever for change, we partner with education leaders through professional learning and coaching to transform schools and accelerate learning for all students.

Education
4
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching

Building educator excellence to give all students the opportunity for success.

Education
5
Chicago Public Education Fund

The chicago public education fund (the fund) is a nonprofit organization that improves public schools in chicago by investing in the talented educators who lead them.

Education
6
New Classrooms Innovation Partners Inc

To create and inspire better ways to give every student an educational foundation for lifelong success. we imagine a world where every student attends a school that meets them where they are, adapts to the unique ways they learn, and…

Education
7
Innovateedu Inc

Innovateedu catalyzes education transformation by bridging gaps in data, policy, practice, and research to center the needs of the field in accelerating innovation towards an equitable, inclusive and radically different future for all…

Education
8
Innovate Public Schools

Build the parent and community demand for world-class public schools, and to accelerate the growth of these schools, particularly for low-income students, students of colors, and students with special needs.

Philanthropy
9
360 Accelerator Education Partners

360 Accelerator provides leadership development services to public education leaders.

—
10
Deans for Impact

See Schedule ODeans for Impact supports educator-preparation programs to bring the science of learning into teaching practice; partners with policymakers to ensure pathways into teaching are accessible, practice-based, and…

Education
11
National Association of Independent Schools Inc

As the largest association of independent schools, nais co-creates the future of education by uniting and empowering our community. we do this through thought leadership, research, creation and curation of resources, and direct…

—
12
Up Education Network

The principal intent of the organization is to conduct activities to advance education reform in public schools, including public charter schools. specifically, the organization will engage in activities to support and transform…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is New Leaders Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Human Schools Project Incorporated. 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

17 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. 17 of the 21 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/17
Grantees still filing
8/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHICAGO CONNECTED: $1,355,500 · OtherCHICAGO CONNECTEDTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: $574,938 · OtherTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $172,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON+3 more: $92,450 · OtherNEW LEADERS INC: $401,987 · EducationNEW LEADERS INCLEADERSHIP AND DESIGN: $221,250 · EducationLEADERSHIP AND DESIGNNORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: $142,600 · EducationNORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITYAccelerate Institute: $78,280 · EducationAccelerate InstituteNational SAM Innovation Project Inc: $71,085 · EducationNational SAM Innovation Project IncMIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION: $48,750 · EducationSURGE INSTITUTE: $42,500 · Education+4 more: $90,000 · Education+4 moreFOREFRONT: $50,000 · PhilanthropyHOPEWELL FUND: $25,000 · PhilanthropyTHE MODERN CLASSROOMS PROJECT INC: $15,000 · PhilanthropyLEAP Innovations: $16,500 · Human Services
Other$2,194,888Education$1,096,452Philanthropy$90,000Human Services$16,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEW LEADERS INC: $401,987 over 2y, 1.0% of budgetLEADERSHIP AND DESIGN: $221,250 over 3y, 4.2% of budgetNORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: $142,600 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetAccelerate Institute: $78,280 over 2y, 2.1% of budgetNational SAM Innovation Project Inc: $71,085 over 2y, 1.2% of budgetFOREFRONT: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetMIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION: $48,750 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSURGE INSTITUTE: $42,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetThe Human Schools Project Incorporated: $25,000 over 2y, 13% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $20,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLEAP Innovations: $16,500 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetILLINOIS PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATION: $15,450 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE MODERN CLASSROOMS PROJECT INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetEDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetACERO CHARTER SCHOOLS INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Arie and Ida Crown Me…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Arie and Ida Crown MemorialIL13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Public Education Fund funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Chicago Public Education Fund. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →median 4%
  • Northeastern University: 4% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
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 21 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 Public Education’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