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

· Public charity

Choose Chicago Foundation

The CHOOSE CHICAGO FOUNDATION accelerates the civic, cultural, and economic growth of chicago through travel and tourism initiatives.

$197k
Granted FY2023
4
Grants FY2023
1
States reached
$102k
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, FY2021 to 2023.

Community Improvement$2.1MArts & Culture$256kHealth$250kEducation$10k
02FY2023 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k2 grants · $10k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $187k
$85,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$782k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO$102,221
CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE INC$85,000
NATIONAL LEWIS UNIVERSITY$5,000
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY$5,000
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 (FY21–21, $250k) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SOUTH CHICAGO PARENTS AND FRIENDS: $250k → 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.

17%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$438k · 3 repeat orgs$2.1M to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2023, 3 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
12

Total granted

$438k
$2.0M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-8%
+23%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $112k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23
Community ImprovementEducationHuman ServicesHousing & ShelterEmploymentOther
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

  • UU
    UPTOWN UNITED
    2× · 2021–2022 · $261k · revenue -26% · 31% of their budget
  • SS
    South Shore Chamber Community Development Corp
    2× · 2021–2022 · $98k · revenue +101%
  • WC
    WOODLAWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    2× · 2021–2022 · $79k · revenue -8% · 68% of their budget

Funded once

  • PR
    PUERTO RICAN CULTURAL CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $256k · revenue +74%
  • DN
    DEVCORP NORTH DBA ROGERS PARK BUSINESS ALLIANCEgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $250k · revenue +33%
  • SC
    SOUTH CHICAGO PARENTS & FRIENDS INC
    one grant, 2021 · $250k · revenue +12%
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
Cook County Chamber
Philanthropy
2
Chicago Southland Chamber of Commerce

The chamber provides business referrals and marketing, economic development, and educational training programs.

—
3
Oak Lawn Chamber of Commerce

To represent and advance its business community striving with constant integrity fairness and cooperation to promote and improve the economic atmosphere business climate and image of Oak Lawn

—
4
Highland Park Chamber of Commerce Inc

Local chamber of commerce

—
5
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
6
Oak Park River Forest Chamber of Commerce

The Chamber is a member organization proud to serve businesses in Oak Park, River Forest , Forest Park and the surrounding areas. We Provide leadership, information, events, workshops and opportunities for networking and relationship…

—
7
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

—
8
East Edgewater Chamber of Commerce

The Edgewater Chamber of Commerce's mission is to create and support a thriving business environment, contributing to a vibrant Edgewater community. We present marketing, networking, education, and one-on-one assistance to businesses.

—
9
True Chicago
Arts & Culture
10
Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce

To be a voice for business and a forum for the exchange of ideas and through a variety of chamber programs and services, strengthen the economic vitality of east chicago, hammond, and northwest indiana.

Community Improvement
11
Northcenter Chamber of Commerce

To advance civic, economic, industrial, professional, and cultural welfare of the business community.

—
12
Industrial Council of Nearwest Chicago

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

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chicago Neighborhood Initiatives Inc; the most unlike its peers is Depaul University. 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

19 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.

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

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
13/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UPTOWN UNITED: $261,000 · OtherUPTOWN UNITEDPUERTO RICAN CULTURAL CENTER: $255,500 · OtherPUERTO RICAN CULTURAL CENTERDEVCORP NORTH DBA ROGERS PARK BUSINESS ALLIANCE: $250,000 · OtherDEVCORP NORTH DBA ROGERS PARK BUSINESS ALLIANCEBACK OF THE YARDS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: $250,000 · OtherBACK OF THE YARDS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILGREATER CHATHAM INITIATIVE: $220,000 · OtherGREATER CHATHAM INITIATIVEWEST RIDGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $100,000 · OtherWEST RIDGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCEMorgan Park-Beverly Hills Business Association: $75,000 · OtherLake View East Chamber of Commerce: $50,000 · OtherAUSTIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $142,800 · Community ImprovementAUSTIN CHAMBER OF COMMERC…DEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO: $102,221 · Community ImprovementDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICA…South Shore Chamber Community Development Corp: $98,000 · Community ImprovementSouth Shore Chamber Commu…CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES INC: $85,000 · Community ImprovementCHICAGO NEIGHBORHOOD INIT…WOODLAWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $79,000 · Community ImprovementWOODLAWN CHAMBER OF COMME…LOGAN SQUARE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $73,000 · Community ImprovementLOGAN SQUARE CHAMBER OF C…SOUTH CHICAGO PARENTS & FRIENDS INC: $250,000 · Human ServicesSOUTH CHIC…NORTHWEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR: $220,000 · Housing & ShelterNORTHWEST…LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $100,000 · EmploymentNational Louis University: $5,000 · EducationDEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $5,000 · Education
Other$1,461,500Community Improvement$580,021Human Services$250,000Housing & Shelter$220,000Employment$100,000Education$10,000

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 budgetUPTOWN UNITED: $261,000 over 2y, 31% of budgetPUERTO RICAN CULTURAL CENTER: $255,500 over 1y, 3.0% of budgetDEVCORP NORTH DBA ROGERS PARK BUSINESS ALLIANCE: $250,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetSOUTH CHICAGO PARENTS & FRIENDS INC: $250,000 over 1y, 8.3% of budgetBACK OF THE YARDS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: $250,000 over 1y, 5.2% of budgetNORTHWEST SIDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COR: $220,000 over 1y, 19% of budgetGREATER CHATHAM INITIATIVE: $220,000 over 1y, 16% of budgetAUSTIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $142,800 over 1y, 66% of budgetDEVELOPMENT NOW FOR CHICAGO: $102,221 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetLITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetSouth Shore Chamber Community Development Corp: $98,000 over 2y, 5.1% of budgetCHICAGO NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVES INC: $85,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetWOODLAWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $79,000 over 2y, 68% of budgetMorgan Park-Beverly Hills Business Association: $75,000 over 1y, 49% of budgetLOGAN SQUARE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $73,000 over 1y, 24% of budgetLake View East Chamber of Commerce: $50,000 over 1y, 2.3% of budgetNational Louis University: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $5,000 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.

The Coleman Foundatio…The Chicago Community…John D and Catherine …Small Business Advoca…Robert R McCormick Fo…Local Initiatives Sup…Fifth Third Chicagola…Women's Business Deve…The Bank of America C…National Philanthropi…Amazonsmile Foundation
The Coleman Foundation IncIL19.8× affinity7 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Coleman Foundation Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Small Business Advocacy Council · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · Fifth Third Chicagoland Foundation · Women's Business Development Center · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · 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 Choose Chicago Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Choose Chicago Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    10report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 Choose Chicago Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Choose Chicago Foundation 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 19 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $17M of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Choose Chicago’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