Skip to content
Kids First Chicago for Education at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Kids First Chicago for Education

See schedule o narrative for part I, line 1, description of organization's mission.

$71k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
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, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$186kCommunity Improvement$116kHousing & Shelter$110kHealth$40kYouth Development$15k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $66,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $71,352 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $5,352 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k4 grants · $60k
$15,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$6.2M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY COUNCIL$15,000
A HOUSE IN AUSTIN$15,000
TEAMWORK ENGLEWOOD$15,000
EDUCATION COMMUNITY COMMITTEE$15,000
CHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE$6,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 97% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%NORTHWEST CENTER: $15k → 9%Children's First Fund: $31k → 14%BUILD INC: $15k → 19%Children's First Fund: $20k → 14%LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $15k → 14%CHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE: $6k → 14%Rush University Medical Ctr: $25k → 14%Chicago International Charter School: $30k → 14%SOMETHING GOOD IN ENGLEWOOD INC: $20k → 14%Something Good in Englewood: $20k → 14%SOMETHING GOOD IN ENGLEWOOD INC: $20k → 14%SOMETHING GOOD IN ENGLEWOOD INC: $15k → 14%TEAMWORK ENGLEWOOD: $15k → 14%THE RESURRECTION PROJECT: $25k → 14%THE RESURRECTION PROJECT: $20k → 14%PILSEN NEIGHBORS COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $20k → 14%THE RESURRECTION PROJECT: $15k → 14%The Resurrection Project: $10k → 14%Austin Coming Together: $20k → 14%GAP COMMUNITY CENTER: $20k → 14%BUILD INC: $15k → 14%GAP COMMUNITY CENTER: $20k → 14%A HOUSE IN AUSTIN: $15k → 14%EDUCATION COMMUNITY COMMITTEE: $15k → 14%Austin Coming Together: $10k → 14%GREATER AUBURN - GRESHAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $15k → 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.

60%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$281k · 5 repeat orgs$186k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +213% since the first grant, against +30% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
6

Total granted

$281k
$120k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+213%
+30%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $66k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterEmploymentHealthOther
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

  • TR
    The Resurrection Project
    4× · 2019–2023 · $70k · revenue +213%
  • GC
    GAP COMMUNITY CENTER
    3× · 2021–2023 · $55k · revenue +12%
  • CF
    CHILDREN FIRST FUND THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION
    2× · 2019–2020 · $51k · revenue +66%

Funded once

  • CC
    CHICAGO CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATIONgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $30k · revenue +46%
  • RU
    Rush University Medical Centergraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +30%
  • PN
    PILSEN NEIGHBORS COMMUNITY COUNCIL
    one grant, 2021 · $20k · 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 United for Equity

Connecting and amplifying the power of individuals to build a just, equitable, and inclusive city.

Civil Rights
2
Enlace Chicago

Enlace Chicago convenes, organizes, and builds the capacity of little village stakeholders to confront systemic inequities and barriers to economic and social access. Enlace Chicago is dedicated to making a positive difference in the lives…

Community Improvement
3
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
4
Onward Neighborhood House

We open doors to improve lives and uplift communities through educational, economic and support services.

—
5
Garfield Park Community Council

Garfield Park Community Council is dedicated to the revitalization of Garfield Park community on Chicago's West Side, a neighborhood of rich history, committed residents, and tremendous opportunities.

Community Improvement
6
Chicago Votes

Chicago Votes is a non-partisan, non-profit organization building a more inclusive democracy by putting power in the hands of young Chicagoans. We're engaging and developing a new generation of leaders by opening the doors of government,…

Civil Rights
7
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
8
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…

—
9
Chicago Cred Inc
Employment
10
Emerald South Economic Development Colloborative

To ensure that access and opportunities are shared to benefit residents and business owners of chicagos southside. we aim to foster growth of local businesses and leaders, attract new investment, develop our local labor workforce and…

—
11
Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc

Secure racial equity and economic opportunity for all

Crime & Legal
12
Arise Chicago

Arise chicago builds partnerships between faith communities and workers to fight workplace injustice through education, organizing, and advocating for public policy changes.

Employment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Build Inc; the most unlike its peers is Little Village Community Council. 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

15 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. 15 of the 16 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
12/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

SOMETHING GOOD IN ENGLEWOOD INC: $75,000 · EducationSOMETHING GOOD IN ENGLEWOOD INCCHILDREN FIRST FUND THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $50,600 · EducationCHILDREN FIRST FUND THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS F…Austin Coming Together: $30,000 · EducationAustin Coming TogetherCHICAGO CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $30,000 · EducationCHICAGO CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATIONA HOUSE IN AUSTIN: $15,000 · EducationA HOUSE IN AUSTINThe Resurrection Project: $70,000 · Housing & ShelterThe Resurrection ProjectGAP COMMUNITY CENTER: $55,000 · Housing & ShelterGAP COMMUNITY CENTERPILSEN NEIGHBORS COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $20,000 · Community ImprovementPILSEN NEIGHBOR…Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development Inc: $15,000 · Community ImprovementBaltimoreans Un…Little Village Community Council: $15,000 · Community ImprovementLittle Village …Teamwork Englewood Inc: $15,000 · Community ImprovementTeamwork Englew…EDUCATION COMMUNITY COMMITTEE: $15,000 · OtherBUILD INC: $15,000 · OtherRush University Medical Center: $25,000 · HealthNORTHWEST CENTER: $15,000 · EmploymentCHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE: $6,000 · Employment
Education$200,600Housing & Shelter$125,000Community Improvement$65,000Other$30,000Health$25,000Employment$21,000

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 Resurrection Project: $70,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetGAP COMMUNITY CENTER: $55,000 over 3y, 4.5% of budgetCHILDREN FIRST FUND THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOUNDATION: $50,600 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetAustin Coming Together: $30,000 over 2y, 1.3% of budgetCHICAGO CHARTER SCHOOL FOUNDATION: $30,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetRush University Medical Center: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPILSEN NEIGHBORS COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $20,000 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetBaltimoreans United in Leadership Development Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBUILD INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetNORTHWEST CENTER: $15,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetA HOUSE IN AUSTIN: $15,000 over 1y, 4.0% of budgetTeamwork Englewood Inc: $15,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% 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.

The Chicago Community…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
The Chicago Community TrustIL15.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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 Kids First Chicago for Education funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Kids First Chicago for Education. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    8report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 16 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $13k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Kids First Chicago for Education’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