Skip to content
J Freeman Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

J Freeman Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$2k
Granted FY2024still arriving
1
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$2k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Education$89kHuman Services$22kYouth Development$15kFood & Nutrition$14kHealth$4kHousing & Shelter$3kAnimals$1k
02FY2024 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$2,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$186k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
BRAINATION INC$2,000
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 (FY18–22, $36k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%Chicago Hope: $12k → 14%FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC: $15k → 16%CHICAGO HOPE: $2k → 14%CENTER FOR REFUGEE SERVICES: $7k → 16%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.

68%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$101k · 4 repeat orgs$47k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against +30% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
6

Total granted

$101k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
+30%

Still filing today

100%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2k went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • HI
    HOFFMAN INSTITUTE FOUNDATION
    2× · 2021–2022 · $42k · revenue +188%
  • OS
    OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
    3× · 2018–2021 · $41k · revenue +45%
  • SH
    SETON HOME STUDY SCHOOL
    2× · 2022–2023 · $5k · revenue +5%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $15k
  • FV
    FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INCgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $15k · revenue +30%
  • CF
    Center for Refugee Servicesgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $7k · revenue +36%
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
Chicago Free School

Chicago Free School provides pre-kindergarten through 8th grade instruction and support activities. The faculty consists of qualified indiviuals with the appropriate education and experiende to provide students with the education that…

Education
2
The Family Institute

Our mission is to strengthen and heal families and individuals from all walks of life through clinical service, education and research.

—
3
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

The Chicago School educates the next generation of change-makers in innovative theory and culturally competent practice to strengthen the integrated health of individuals, organizations, and communities.

Education
4
Chicago State Foundation

The mission of Chicago State Foundation is to advance the interest and welfare of CSU by building relationships, securing philanthropic support, stewarding assets and otherwise procuring private support on behalf of the University. Working…

Education
5
Christopher House

Christopher house is a family of schools that helps children and families succeed in school, the workplace, and life. through our unique and innovative approach, we are effectively closing the opportunity gap through a continuum of…

Human Services
6
Cornerstone Academy co Richard Van der Molen

Our mission is to provide a supportive Christian education for students who may benefit from personalized attention as they work toward a high school diploma while developing tools for self-sufficiency and a Christian life ethic.

Education
7
The Chicago School - California Inc

The Chicago School educates the next generation of change-makers in innovative theory and culturally competent practice to strengthen the integrated health of individuals, organizations, and communities.

—
8
Family Center of Hope

To assist children and adults in low-income areas with new and innovative forms of education, literacy and training.

Human Services
9
Child Link Inc

Child Link provides foster care, family counseling, and therapy services to Chicago area adolescents who are at risk of homelessness. Child Link also refers adolescents to other agencies that are able to provide additional resources and…

Human Services
10
Henry Booth House

The organization is organized to provide social services for children and families from Birth thru five years of age. Our mission is to "improve the quality of life for families in culturally and economically diverse Chicago communities by…

Human Services
11
Chicago Heightening Opportunity and Potential for

Providing academic support to children experiencing homelessness in Chicago and providing resources and services to families experiencing homelessness in Chicago.

Education
12
Family Promise of Irving

Family Promise of Irving is a faith-based ministry that supports families who are experiencing homelessness as they search for new jobs, undergo job training, and obtain permanent housing.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Make-a-Wish Foundation of Arizona Inc; the most unlike its peers is Chicago Hope Inc. 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HOFFMAN INSTITUTE FOUNDATION: $41,500 · EducationHOFFMAN INSTITUTE FOUNDATIONOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $41,000 · EducationOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONSETON HOME STUDY SCHOOL: $4,500 · Education+1 more: $2,000 · EducationFAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC: $15,000 · Human ServicesFAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION …CHICAGO HOPE INC: $14,000 · Human ServicesCHICAGO HOPE INCCenter for Refugee Services: $7,000 · Human ServicesCenter for Refugee ServicesIndividual grant recipient: $15,000 · OtherIndividual gra…SETON HOME INC: $3,000 · OtherSETON HOME INCZOOMAGINATION: $1,000 · OtherMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA INC: $3,500 · Health
Education$89,000Human Services$36,000Other$19,000Health$3,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetHOFFMAN INSTITUTE FOUNDATION: $41,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetOHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION: $41,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCenter for Refugee Services: $7,000 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetSETON HOME STUDY SCHOOL: $4,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA INC: $3,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBRAINATION INC: $2,000 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.

American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
American Online Giving Foundation IncDE6.7× affinity4 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 J Freeman Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from J Freeman Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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-PF 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 J Freeman’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