Skip to content
Communitas Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Communitas Charitable Trust

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$162k
Granted FY2023
2
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$161k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0184% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Environment$448kInternational$323kEducation$167kPhilanthropy$107kHuman Services$101kCrime & Legal$92kFood & Nutrition$68kArts & Culture$30kOther$0
02FY2023 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k1 grant · $1k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $161k
$160,653
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GLOBAL GIVING$160,653
RIVERSIDE THEATRE$1,000
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 (FY17–22, $89k) 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%CARE FOR REAL: $4k → 14%CARE FOR REAL: $3k → 14%CARE FOR REAL: $3k → 14%CARE FOR REAL: $3k → 14%HOWARD AREA COMMUNITY CENTER: $50k → 14%HOWARD AREA COMMUNITY CENTER: $25k → 14%HOWARD AREA COMMUNITY CENTER: $1k → 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

MN
IL
WI
NY
OR
IA
CA
DC
AL
GA
TX
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 Communitas Charitable Trust’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 39% of the giving stays in IL; by stated purpose, 17%.

Communitas Charitable Trustlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 2.4% directed abroad (not shown)
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.

83%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.2M · 14 repeat orgs$247k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2023, 12 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
18

Total granted

$1.2M
$247k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-8%
+41%

Still filing today

71%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
EducationHuman ServicesInternationalCivil RightsArts & CultureCrime & LegalOther
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

  • University of Illinois Foundation
    2× · 2019–2020 · $127k · revenue +39%
  • HA
    Howard Area Community Center
    3× · 2018–2022 · $76k · revenue +33%
  • CC
    CHICAGO COMMUNITY CHORUS NFP
    2× · 2018–2019 · $20k · revenue +17%

Funded once

  • WW
    WAREHOUSE WORKERS FOR JUSTICE CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $92k
  • YF
    Youth Farm and Market Project
    one grant, 2019 · $40k · revenue -76%
  • KO
    Kenwood Oakland Community Organizationgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +263%
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
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
2
Ampt Advancing Nonprofits

Advancing Nonprofits is committed to strengthening the organizational health and support long-term development of small nonprofits on Chicagos west and south sides while prioritizing Black- and Latine-led community organizations.…

Community Improvement
3
Legal Aid Chicago

At legal aid chicago, we work together to provide high quality civil legal aid to people living in poverty and other vulnerable groups.through advocacy, education, collaboration, and litigation we empower individuals, protect fundamental…

Crime & Legal
4
Twin Cities Diversity in Practice

To attract, recruit, advance, and retain attorneys of color in the twin cities through education and collaboration with member organizations.

Community Improvement
5
Shriver Center On Poverty Law

The shriver center on poverty law (the shriver center) is an illinois not-for-profit corporation that fights for racial and economic justice by advancing laws and policies that change people's lives.

Crime & Legal
6
Colorado Center On Law and Policy

Colorado center on law and policy is an antipoverty organization advancing the rights of every coloradan.

Crime & Legal
7
Aids Foundation of Chicago

The aids foundation of chicago mobilizes communities to create equity and justice for people living with and vulnerable to hiv and related chronic disease.

Health
8
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
9
Community Credit Lab

To support equitable access to economic opportunities for immigrants, refugees, low-income, marginalized, and underserved communities in king county and the united states.

Human Services
10
Chicago Refugee Coalition

The Chicago Refugee Coalition is a 501c3 non-profit organization dedicated ot the alleviation of human suffering through innovative partnerships, advocacy and community empowerment.

Human Services
11
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…

—
12
Chicago United for Equity

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

Civil Rights
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Shared Interest Inc; the most unlike its peers is Chicago Community Chorus 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

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. 19 of the 32 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/19
Grantees still filing
10/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ECOVIVA NFP: $448,318 · OtherECOVIVA NFPCOFI: $156,000 · OtherCOFIWAREHOUSE WORKERS FOR JUSTICE CENTER: $92,000 · OtherWAREHOUSE WORKERS FOR JUSTICE CENTEREDUCATION FOR ALL MOROCCO: $45,000 · OtherYouth Farm and Market Project: $40,000 · Other+15 more: $94,000 · Other+15 moreGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC: $265,653 · InternationalGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATI…SHARED INTEREST INC: $12,000 · InternationalUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $126,713 · EducationUniversity …RETHINKING SCHOOLS LIMITED: $20,000 · EducationRETHINKING …+1 more: $2,500 · EducationHoward Area Community Center: $76,000 · Human ServicesCARE FOR REAL: $13,000 · Human ServicesKenwood Oakland Community Organization: $25,000 · Community ImprovementCHICAGO COMMUNITY CHORUS NFP: $20,000 · Arts & CultureRIVERSIDE THEATRE CO: $5,000 · Arts & CultureREFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES: $10,000 · Civil RightsCHANGING WORLDS: $6,000 · Civil Rights
Other$875,318International$277,653Education$149,213Human Services$89,000Community Improvement$25,000Arts & Culture$25,000Civil Rights$16,000

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 budgetECOVIVA NFP: $448,318 over 5y, 40% of budgetGLOBALGIVING FOUNDATION INC: $265,653 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetUniversity of Illinois Foundation: $126,713 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetHoward Area Community Center: $76,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetRETHINKING SCHOOLS LIMITED: $20,000 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetINSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE & TRADE POLICY: $15,000 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetCARE FOR REAL: $13,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetSHARED INTEREST INC: $12,000 over 4y, 0.3% of budgetREFUGEE & IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION & LEGAL SERVICES: $10,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetChicago Jobs Council: $10,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCHANGING WORLDS: $6,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetRIVERSIDE THEATRE CO: $5,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE: $3,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVIVIAN G HARSH SOCIETY INC: $2,500 over 1y, 12% of budgetLITERATURE FOR ALL OF US: $2,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC: $1,000 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 Chicago Community…John D and Catherine …The Albert Pick Jr Fu…Polk Bros Foundation …WK Kellogg FoundationImpactassetsincTides FoundationNational Philanthropi…Network for GoodJpmorgan Chase Founda…Vanguard Charitable E…Donor Advised Charita…
The Chicago Community TrustIL16.2× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Albert Pick Jr Fund · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · WK Kellogg Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Tides Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Network for Good · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc

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 Communitas Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Communitas Charitable Trust. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%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
    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 · 0–40%
    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 Communitas Charitable Trust?

    Find your warmest path to Communitas Charitable Trust 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 32 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-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Communitas’ 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