Skip to content
Jonah M Siegellak Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Jonah M Siegellak Family Foundation

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.

$25k
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$10k
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, FY2021 to 2025.

Education$43kHuman Services$31kHealth$24kYouth Development$9kHousing & Shelter$4kPhilanthropy$3kFood & Nutrition$2k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $15k
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$3,500
Median grant
3
States reached
$5k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ONE FAMILY ILLINOIS$10,000
SATURDAY PLACE$5,000
KU ENDOWMENT$5,000
CASTING FOR RECOVERY$3,500
NORTHWESTERN UNIV SETTLEMENT HOUSE$1,000
WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY$240
WINNETKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION$200
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 (FY21–25, $32k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%BURST INTO BOOKS: $1k → 14%BURST INTO BOOKS: $1k → 14%ONE FAMILY ILLINOIS: $10k → 14%ONE FAMILY ILLINOIS: $5k → 14%SOS CHILDREN'S VILLAGES OF ILLINOIS: $5k → 14%SOS CHILDREN'S VILLAGES OF ILLINOIS: $5k → 14%SOS CHILDREN'S VILLAGES OF ILLINOIS: $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 grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$109k · 14 repeat orgs$3k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 8 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
3

Total granted

$109k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+9%
+59%

Still filing today

64%
67%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 99% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $240 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
HealthHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentEducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • OF
    ONE FAMILY ILLINOIS
    5× · 2021–2025 · $30k · revenue +2%
  • SP
    Saturday Place
    5× · 2021–2025 · $25k · revenue +2%
  • CASTING FOR RECOVERY
    2× · 2024–2025 · $7k · revenue +6%

Funded once

  • TP
    THE PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP INC
    one grant, 2023 · $1k · revenue +7%
  • TB
    THE BASE CHICAGO
    one grant, 2023 · $1k
  • VETERANS COMMUNITY PROJECTgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $1k · revenue +59%
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
Girls On the Run - Chicago Inc

The organization is a nonprofit after school program that uses the power of running to teach girls, 3rd-8th grade, critical social emotional learning skills.

Recreation & Sports
2
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…

—
3
Pitch in

Established in 2011 by retired Chicago Cubs pitcher Kerry Wood, and his wife Sarah, Pitch In (fka Wood Family Foundation) seeks to improve the lives of children in four high-need neighborhoods in Chicago: North Lawndale, Humboldt Park,…

Philanthropy
4
Impact Grants Chicago

Impact Grants Chicago connects, engages and inspires women to improve the community of Chicago by collectively funding $100,000 grants to Chicago nonprofits that are dedicated to addressing the challenges facing the city.

Philanthropy
5
The Chicago Network Inc

In furtherance of its charitable and educational goals, the Network's activities consist primarily of providing educational opportunities for its members and the public on issues related to the advancement of women in the workplace. As the…

Community Improvement
6
One for One Chicago

One for one chicago provides paid work-based learning, mentorship, and career readiness support for young people ages 1524 in chicago communities with high rates of unemployment and limited access to early work experience.

Youth Development
7
A Better Chicago

A better chicago is changing how chicago fights poverty by investing in bold ideas that create opportunity for our youth.

Human Services
8
Healing to Action

Ending gender-based violence by building the leadership and collective power of the communities most impacted.

Employment
9
The Network Advocating Against Domestic Violence

The Network is a group of 40+ member organizations dedicated to improving the lives of those impacted by gender-based violence through education, public policy and advocacy, and connecting community members with direct service providers.…

Human Services
10
The Chicago Innovation Foundation
Philanthropy
11
Chicago Toy & Game Foundation
—
12
Foster Progress

Empower Illinois youth currently or formerly in foster care to attain a college degree and transition into adulthood successfully by providing mentorship, advocacy, and educational opportunity.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chicago Foundation for Women; the most unlike its peers is Patrick William Roche 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

13 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. 13 of the 19 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/13
Grantees still filing
10/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

KU ENDOWMENT: $15,000 · OtherKU ENDOWMENTNORTHWESTERN UNIV SETTLEMENT HOUSE: $3,000 · OtherNORTHWESTERN UNIV SETTLEMENT HO…GIRLS IN THE GAME NFP: $3,000 · OtherGIRLS IN THE GAME NFPCHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN: $3,000 · OtherCHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMENHabilitative Systems Inc: $2,000 · OtherHabilitative Systems IncDREAMS FOR KIDS: $2,000 · OtherDREAMS FOR KIDSMARWEN: $2,000 · OtherMARWEN+3 more: $2,240 · Other+3 moreONE FAMILY ILLINOIS: $30,000 · Human ServicesONE FAMILY ILLINOISBURST INTO BOOKS: $2,000 · Human ServicesBURST INTO BOOKSSaturday Place: $25,000 · Youth DevelopmentSaturday PlaceKIDS OFF THE BLOCK INC: $3,000 · Youth DevelopmentKIDS OFF THE BLOCK INCPATRICK WILLIAM ROCHE FOUNDATION: $11,000 · HealthPATRICK WILLIAM ROCHE…CASTING FOR RECOVERY: $6,500 · HealthCASTING FOR RECOVERYA SILVER LINING FOUNDATION: $4,500 · HealthA SILVER LINING FOUND…VETERANS COMMUNITY PROJECT: $1,000 · Public BenefitTHE WINNETKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $450 · Education
Other$32,240Human Services$32,000Youth Development$28,000Health$22,000Public Benefit$1,000Education$450

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

25%50%75%100%$10k$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetONE FAMILY ILLINOIS: $30,000 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetSaturday Place: $25,000 over 5y, 2.1% of budgetPATRICK WILLIAM ROCHE FOUNDATION: $11,000 over 3y, 61% of budgetCASTING FOR RECOVERY: $6,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetA SILVER LINING FOUNDATION: $4,500 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetGIRLS IN THE GAME NFP: $3,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN: $3,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHabilitative Systems Inc: $2,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBURST INTO BOOKS: $2,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetTHE PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetVETERANS COMMUNITY PROJECT: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE WINNETKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $450 over 2y, 0.2% 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.

United Way of Metropo…AbbVie FoundationThe Chicago Community…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Metropolitan Chicago IncIL13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · AbbVie Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Jonah M Siegellak Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jonah M Siegellak Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 19 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 Jonah M Siegellak Family’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