Skip to content
Jane W and David M Stone Charitable Trust at a glance

· Private foundation

Jane W and David M Stone Charitable Trust

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$703k
Granted FY2025still arriving
10
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$315k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$1.7MArts & Culture$1.6MYouth Development$677kPhilanthropy$378kReligion$288kFood & Nutrition$161kInternational$134kHousing & Shelter$40kOther$0
02FY2025 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $3k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $85k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $300k
  • $250k+1 grant · $315k
$50,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$10M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY$315,000
BY THE HAND CLUB$150,000
SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH OF EVANSTON$50,000
LURIE CHILDRENS HOSPITAL$50,000
KENILWORTH UNION CHURCH$50,000
THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO$35,000
LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION$30,000
ROOM TO READ$10,000
LYRIC OPERA OF CHICAGO$10,000
RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER$2,500
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 (FY17–25, $276k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GIFT OF ADOPTION FUND: $1k → 8%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $60k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $40k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $30k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $25k → 14%LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $20k → 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

IL
NY
CT
CA
CO
VA
KS
DC
TX
FL
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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$5.2M · 17 repeat orgs$588k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +45% since the first grant, against +19% for those funded once.

17 repeat relationships: 8 still active in FY2025, 9 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
28

Total granted

$5.2M
$270k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+45%
+19%

Still filing today

53%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 55% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $318k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationArts & CultureHealthYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • TA
    THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
    8× · 2017–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +45%
  • LC
    LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $275k · revenue +59%
  • OW
    Operation Walk Chicago
    7× · 2017–2024 · $220k · revenue +50%

Funded once

  • NH
    NOURISHING HOPE
    one grant, 2024 · $50k · revenue -3%
  • LC
    LA CASA NORTE
    one grant, 2024 · $40k · revenue 0%
  • NL
    New Life Centers of Chicagoland
    one grant, 2024 · $35k · revenue 0%
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 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
2
Columbia College Chicago

The organization's mission is to educate students for creative occupations in diverse fields of arts and media.

Education
3
The Chicago Scholars Foundation

Chicago scholars is transforming the leadership landscape of our city by resolving the fundamental barriers to success for academically driven, first generation college students from under-resourced communities.

Education
4
National Opinion Research Center

See schedule onorc at the university of chicago conducts research and data science on critical societal issues to guide decision-making and the development of programs and public policy. our experts identify relationships and trends, and…

Social Science
5
Kipp Chicago Schools

The team at kipp chicago schools is guided by a simple, yet powerful mission: to create a network of excellent schools in chicago that teach our students the character and academic skills necessary to succeed in college and beyond, and to…

Education
6
Pediatric Faculty Foundation Inc

We value excellence and innovation in clinical and basic research, coordinated and comprehensive patient care, ongoing physician education, and evidence-based child advocacy. our goal is to provide leadership in endeavors that promote the…

Health
7
Lake Forest Graduate School of Management

Lake Forest Graduate School of Management's mission is to bring the real world to business education and leadership development.

—
8
The University of Chicago Charter School Corporation

To Prepare Students for Success in Four-Year Colleges.

Education
9
Lycee Francais de Chicago Inc

The Lycee Francais de Chicago, driven by our core values of respect, responsibility and the joy of learning, empowers students to grow into active global citizens.

Education
10
Junior Achievement of Chicago

To inspire and prepare young people to succeed in a global economy

International
11
Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago

Achieving international impact through world-class research and education in fundamental computer science and information technology.

Education
12
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
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Music Institute of Chicago; the most unlike its peers is Medical Missions Foundation. 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

30 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. 30 of the 47 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)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
30/30
Grantees still filing
20/30
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: $1,139,500 · OtherLURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITALBy The Hand Club For Kids: $692,000 · OtherBy The Hand Club For KidsNORTH SHORE FOUNDATION: $372,500 · OtherNORTH SHORE FOUNDATIONHOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY: $315,000 · OtherHOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERYSECOND BAPTIST CHURCH OF EVANSTON: $292,500 · OtherSECOND BAPTIST CHURCH OF EVANSTONA NEW DAY CAMBODIA: $128,340 · Other+24 more: $397,620 · Other+24 moreTHE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO: $1,440,000 · EducationTHE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO+3 more: $34,500 · EducationLITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $275,000 · Human Services+1 more: $1,000 · Human ServicesOperation Walk Chicago: $220,000 · HealthBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $10,000 · Health+1 more: $2,500 · HealthLyric Opera of Chicago: $166,647 · Arts & CultureMERIT SCHOOL OF MUSIC: $25,000 · Arts & Culture+2 more: $10,000 · Arts & CultureGARY COMER YOUTH CENTER INC: $97,000 · Youth DevelopmentNew Life Centers of Chicagoland: $35,000 · Youth DevelopmentREADING POWER INC: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $90,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$3,337,460Education$1,474,500Human Services$276,000Health$232,500Arts & Culture$201,647Youth Development$137,000Food & Nutrition$90,000

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 budgetTHE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO: $1,440,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetBy The Hand Club For Kids: $692,000 over 6y, 1.7% of budgetLITTLE CITY FOUNDATION: $275,000 over 9y, 0.2% of budgetOperation Walk Chicago: $220,000 over 7y, 9.8% of budgetLyric Opera of Chicago: $166,647 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetGARY COMER YOUTH CENTER INC: $97,000 over 5y, 0.8% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $90,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetNOURISHING HOPE: $50,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBEARS CARE: $45,500 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetLA CASA NORTE: $40,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNew Life Centers of Chicagoland: $35,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetROOM TO READ: $30,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMERIT SCHOOL OF MUSIC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGOLDEN APPLE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMUSIC INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMEDICAL MISSIONS FOUNDATION: $5,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetREADING POWER INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetANDERSON RANCH ARTS CENTER: $5,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSTART EARLY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICA'S CHARITIES: $2,620 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNorthwestern University: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEW TRIER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION: $2,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetRush University Medical Center: $2,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLawndale Educational and Regional Network Charter School: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSave The Children Federation Inc: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGIFT OF ADOPTION FUND INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSHARE OUR STRENGTH: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE FORTE FOUNDATION: $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.

  • Who funds THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO ↗
  • Who funds By The Hand Club For Kids ↗
  • Who funds LITTLE CITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Operation Walk Chicago ↗
  • Who funds Lyric Opera of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds GARY COMER YOUTH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY ↗
  • Who funds NOURISHING HOPE ↗
  • Who funds BEARS CARE ↗
  • Who funds LA CASA NORTE ↗
  • Who funds New Life Centers of Chicagoland ↗
  • Who funds ROOM TO READ ↗
  • Who funds MERIT SCHOOL OF MUSIC ↗
  • Who funds BLOOD CANCER UNITED INC ↗
  • Who funds GOLDEN APPLE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING ↗
  • Who funds MUSIC INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO ↗
  • Who funds SAN FRANCISCO FIRST TEE ↗
  • Who funds MEDICAL MISSIONS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds READING POWER INC ↗
  • Who funds ANDERSON RANCH ARTS CENTER ↗
  • Who funds START EARLY ↗
  • Who funds AMERICA'S CHARITIES ↗
  • Who funds Northwestern University ↗
  • Who funds NEW TRIER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Rush University Medical Center ↗
  • Who funds Lawndale Educational and Regional Network Charter School ↗

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 Ayco Charitable F…The Chicago Community…Charles H and Beverly…United Way of Metropo…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Jewish Federation of …John D and Catherine …The Bank of America C…National Philanthropi…American Endowment Fo…The Blackbaud Giving …Charities Aid Foundat…
The Ayco Charitable FoundationNY18.6× affinity8 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ayco Charitable Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Charles H and Beverly E Shaw Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · American Endowment Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Charities Aid Foundation America

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 Jane W and David M Stone Charitable Trust funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jane W and David M Stone Charitable Trust. 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 30%
  • Save the Children Federation Inc: 30% of 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 · 0–75%
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 47 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Jane W and David M Stone’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