How much did EXCHANGE CLUB CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION grant in FY2022?

A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 59% of EXCHANGE CLUB CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION’s grantee dollars go to organizations outside the IRS cause taxonomy (common for large international and research funders), so a chart would be mostly “unclassified” and misrepresent the portfolio.

02beneath the categories

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.

…and in their own words, year by year

2019

victimsempoweringadultslegalshelterprocesslaw

2020

—

2021

—

2022

—

Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.

03FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$119,997

Median grant

States reached

$101k

Total assets

Largest grants

PROJECT HELP$119,997

02The need

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY18–21, $433k) land where the poverty rate runs at 7% — the area typically sits at 9%. 6% of those dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge

repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$2.0M · 28 repeat orgs$57k to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +72% since the first grant, against +41% for the ones you funded once.

28 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2022, 27 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$2.0M

$57k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+72%

+41%

Still filing today

89%

86%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesCrime & LegalHousing & ShelterPhilanthropyHealthEducationOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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

LF
LOAVES & FISHES
2× · 2018–2019 · $114k · revenue +124%
3Y
360 YOUTH SERVICES
2× · 2018–2019 · $98k · revenue +72%
FH
FAMILIES HELPING FAMILIES CO BRIDGE COMMUNITIES
3× · 2018–2021 · $83k · revenue +149%

Funded once

FS
FAMILY SHELTER SERVICEgraduated
one grant, 2021 · $12k · revenue +192%
RT
REBUILDING TOGETHER AURORA
one grant, 2019 · $11k · revenue +8%
DL
DUPAGE LEGAL AIDgraduated
one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +41%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

Childrens Advocacy Center of

To assist children who have been victims of abuse

Crime & Legal

Center for Family Services

Administering an array of critical, intensive therapeutic interventions and/or facilitation services to emotionally and behaviorally disturbed clients for whom DCFS is legally responsible in order to stabilize their traditional or home of…

Human Services

Metropolitan Family Services DuPage

Metropolitan Family Services DuPage's mission is to provide and mobilize the services needed to strengthen families and communities.

—

Court Appointed Special Advocates of Cook County

To advocate for the best interests of abused and neglected children.

Crime & Legal

Legal Aid Chicago

To provide free civil legal services to low-income individuals, families and community groups

Crime & Legal

Domestic Abuse Intervention Services

Domestic abuse intervention services offers a wide array of crisis intervention and community education/prevention programs, including a 24-hour help line, programming for children from violent homes, legal advocacy, support groups,…

Human Services

Options and Advocacy for Mchenry County Inc

Empowering individuals with developmental disabilities and their families through advocacy and the coordination of service options

Human Services

Care Partners of Cook County

Care Partners of Cook County provides support and companionship on the journey of aging and serious illness

Human Services

Cornerstone Counseling Ctr Chicago

Cornerstone Counseling empowers people to reach their spiritual, relational, and emotional potential through exceptional counseling and personal development services.

—

Casa of the Tenth Judicial Circuit

Advocate for children who have experienced abuse or neglect

Crime & Legal

Child Care Resource & Referral

Child Care Resource and Referral promotes and facilitates affordable quality child care through assistance, education and advocacy in Will, Grundy, Kendall, and Kankakee counties.

Human Services

Cunningham Childrens Home of Urbana Il

Provide therapeutic services to youth in educational, community, & residential care settings.

Human Services

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Little Friends Inc and the most unlike its peers is Mutual Ground Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 35 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/35

the rest of the field

10%

679/7,113

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

32 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

31/32

Grantees still filing

28/32

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$1,303,897Human Services$433,300Housing & Shelter$110,400Crime & Legal$56,900Philanthropy$50,400Health$45,300Civil Rights$44,200

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Dupage Community FoundationIL47.2× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Dupage Community Foundation · Naperville Rotary Charities Inc · The Bersted Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · George M Eisenberg Foundation · Community Foundation of the Fox · Northwestern Memorial HealthCare Group · The Richard M Schulze Family Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Best Walter & Edith Foundation · Dunham Fund · Community Memorial Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organisation EXCHANGE CLUB CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2025

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

0get no government money at all

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.

05Through Plinth

Through Plinth

Your grantmaking, live and operational

This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: WILL COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER.

Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk

Financial management

low risk

~34 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 7 filed years.

Track record & reputation

low risk

7 years of Form 990 filings, still active.

Legal standing

low risk

US 501(c)(3); EIN 364289490 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.

Governance

Live in Plinth

Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.

Compliance & sanctions

Live in Plinth

OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.

Program capacity

Live in Plinth

Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.

Live · Plinth’s real DD engine

Run the actual assessment on WILL COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER, cold from public data.

Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.

Post-award monitoring · continuous checks

On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 34 months of cash on hand.
On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2024; revenue grew over the period.
On trackReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 6% of their budget — diversified.
Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.

What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.

Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing

Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro

How do I get to Exchange Club Charitable Organization?

Find your warmest path to Exchange Club Charitable Organization through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.

Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.

EXCHANGE CLUB CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

32 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Exchange Club Charitable Organization?

More from the funding graph

EXCHANGE CLUB CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION

What you funded, over time

Past the labels — and the year it shifted

Where the money goes

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Who you back again

Backed again, and grew

Funded once

32 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.

Government reliance of your grantees

Your grantmaking, live and operational

How do I get to Exchange Club Charitable Organization?

More from the funding graph