Skip to content

· Public charity

Current Innovation NFP

Current's mission is to grow an inclusive blue economy, accelerate innovation, and solve persistent water challenges.

$1.9M
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$378k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2024.

Science & Tech$573kEducation$378kEmployment$346kRecreation & Sports$250kEnvironment$165k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 8 grants below total $1,696,958, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,905,628 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $208,670 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 · FY2024

  • $50k–250k5 grants · $752k
  • $250k+3 grants · $945k
$187,025
Median grant
5
States reached
$4.4M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Marquette University$377,538
University of Minnesota$317,540
Northwestern University$250,365
Hire 360$187,025
National Fund for Workforce Solutions$159,011
Cleveland Water Alliance$150,000
University of Cincinnati$136,141
Ohio State University$119,338
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 76% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%University of Minnesota: $318k → 11%National Fund for Workforce Solutions: $159k → 14%Ohio State University: $119k → 15%University of Cincinnati: $136k → 16%Cleveland Water Alliance: $150k → 17%North River Commission: $5k → 14%Hire 360: $187k → 14%Friends of the Chicago River: $5k → 14%Northwestern University: $250k → 14%South Loop Chamber of Commerce: $5k → 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 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
Loyola University of Chicago

We are chicago's jesuit, catholic university - a diverse community seeking god in all things and working to expand knowledge in the service of humanity through learning, justice, and faith.

Education
2
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
3
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

—
4
Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) provides applied scientific research & development services, in the public interest, to develop innovative technology and management solutions.

Science & Tech
5
Milwaukee Development Corporation

-instigate, implement, participate in and promote such activities as shall, in the judgment of mdc, tend to support the general community interest in a strong, vital, aesthetically exciting and economically viable greater milwaukee…

Community Improvement
6
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce

The chicagoland chamber of commerce combines the power of people, with our legacy of leadership and business advocacy, to drive a dynamic economy. we focus on delivering value for our members, making chicagoland a world-class place to live…

—
7
Michigan Chamber of Commerce

To promote conditions favorable to job creation and business success in michigan.

—
8
Saint Xavier University

Saint xavier university, a catholic institution inspired by the heritage of the sisters of mercy, educates persons to search for truth, think critically, communicate effectively and serve wisely and compassionately in support of human…

Education
9
Columbus Compact Corporation

Columbus compact is a catalyst for positive development of central city columbus' neighborhoods and business districts.

Community Improvement
10
University of Chicago

The mission of the university of chicago has been to sustain at the highest level of excellence, the communication of knowledge, the creation of knowledge and the fostering of a dynamic community of scholars and students.

Education
11
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
12
Current Innovation Nfp

Current's mission is to grow an inclusive blue economy, accelerate innovation, and solve persistent water challenges.

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Fund for Workforce Solutions; the most unlike its peers is Marquette 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

8 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. 8 of the 11 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

University of Minnesota: $317,540 · OtherUniversity of MinnesotaUniversity of Cincinnati: $136,141 · OtherUniversity of CincinnatiOhio State University: $119,338 · OtherOhio State University+1 more: $5,000 · OtherMarquette University: $377,538 · EducationMarquette UniversityHIRE360: $187,025 · EmploymentHIRE360NATIONAL FUND FOR WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS: $159,011 · EmploymentNATIONAL FUND FOR WORK…Northwestern University: $250,365 · Recreation & SportsNorthwestern Uni…CLEVELAND WATER ALLIANCE: $150,000 · EnvironmentCLEVELAND…NORTH RIVER COMMISSION: $5,000 · Community ImprovementFRIENDS OF THE CHICAGO RIVER: $5,000 · Arts & Culture
Other$578,019Education$377,538Employment$346,036Recreation & Sports$250,365Environment$150,000Community Improvement$5,000Arts & Culture$5,000

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 budgetMarquette University: $377,538 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetNorthwestern University: $250,365 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetHIRE360: $187,025 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetNATIONAL FUND FOR WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS: $159,011 over 1y, 9.2% of budgetCLEVELAND WATER ALLIANCE: $150,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE CHICAGO RIVER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetSOUTH LOOP CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $5,000 over 1y, 5.9% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Current Innovation NFP funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Current Innovation NFP. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report 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.

    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 11 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 Current Innovation NFP’s filings →

    More from the funding graph