· Private foundation
Karen R & John T Crotty Foundation
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.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k18 grants · $64k
- $10k–50k2 grants · $40k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MATTHIAS ACADEMY | $25,000 |
| ST JAMES | $15,000 |
| COOL FOOD PANTRIES OF LAKE COUNTY | $7,500 |
| LAKE BLUFF OPEN LANDS ASSOC | $6,000 |
| SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER | $5,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY | $5,000 |
| PADS | $5,000 |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD | $5,000 |
| WFMT | $5,000 |
| OCEAN CONSERVANCY | $4,000 |
| WTTW | $4,000 |
| MCCORMICK FOUNDATION | $4,000 |
| SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATOIN | $3,000 |
| NAMI CHICAGO | $2,500 |
| NOW FOUNDATION | $2,000 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $184k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 98% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
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 — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +79% since the first grant, against +44% for the ones you funded once.
49 repeat relationships — 14 still active in FY2024, 35 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $27k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- MAMATTHIAS ACADEMY CORPORATION5× · 2020–2024 · $104k · revenue ×34
- MFMetropolitan Family Services3× · 2017–2019 · $70k · revenue +332%
- PLPADS Lake County Inc6× · 2017–2022 · $41k · revenue +352%
Funded once
- CCCOMMUNITY CHURCHone grant, 2019 · $20k
- UJUIC JANE ADDAMS COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKone grant, 2021 · $10k
- LSLUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF ILLINOISgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $10k · revenue +72%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
Ci works to spotlight and secure the critical benefits that nature provides to humanity.
Wwf's mission is to conserve nature and reduce the most pressing threats to the diversity of life on earth. (continued on schedule o)
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…
Provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.
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…
The mission of mit is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century.
Rainforest trust saves endangered wildlife and protects our planet by creating rainforest reserves through partnerships, community engagement, and donor support.
Climate central, inc. (the organization") is an independent not-for-profit organization of leading scientists, technology experts and communication professionals that are dedicated to researching and reporting on climate change and its…
The organization pursues higher standards of news coverage of natural resources and the environment -- standards of accuracy, fairness, balance, depth and context.
Wri is committed to creating change that improves people's lives and ensures the natural world can thrive. (see schedule o)wri's bold vision requires a formula for success we call "count it. change it. scale it.":- count it: our work is…
The Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) is a world-renowned center for biological discovery and training that is notably affiliated with more than 60 Nobel Prize winners. Research is conducted by full-time faculty as well as hundreds of the…
We safeguard the earth: its people, its plants and animals, and (see schedule o) the natural systems on which all life depends. we work to restore the integrity of the elements that sustain life - air, land, and water - to defend…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is National Park Foundation and the most unlike its peers is Lake Bluff Open Lands Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 45 years old; the field is 20. 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.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 12% of the field you don’t fund.
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.
53 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 53 of the 96 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
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.
- Who funds MATTHIAS ACADEMY CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Metropolitan Family Services ↗
- Who funds PADS Lake County Inc ↗
- Who funds The Foundation for Tomorrow Inc ↗
- Who funds WATER FIRST INTERNATIONAL ↗
- Who funds LAKE BLUFF OPEN LANDS ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK ↗
- Who funds AMERICAN INDIAN COLLEGE FUND ↗
- Who funds SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds WINDOW TO THE WORLD COMMUNICATIONS INC ↗
- Who funds THE STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION INC ↗
- Who funds OCEAN CONSERVANCY ↗
- Who funds LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds ROBERT R MCCORMICK FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds The Family Institute ↗
- Who funds PADS OF ELGIN INC ↗
- Who funds THE RIDGES SANCTUARY INC ↗
- Who funds READING POWER INC ↗
- Who funds Chicago White Sox Charities Inc ↗
- Who funds UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN DOOR CHILDRENS CENTER INC ↗
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.
Open a dossier: Schultz Family Private Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Edwards Family Cjlj Foundation · Lumw Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Baxter International Foundation · Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Arthur J Gallagher Foundation · Thrivent Charitable Impact & Investing · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program
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 organization Karen R & John T Crotty Foundation 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.
- Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service Inc Dba Global Refuge — 100% of income from government
- Center for Coastal Studies Inc — 26% of income from government
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Inc — 7% of income from government
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 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.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Karen R & John T Crotty Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Karen R & John T Crotty Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.