Skip to content
Liberty Prairie at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Private foundation

Liberty Prairie

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.

$3k
Granted FY2022
1
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$3k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0191% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2022.

Environment$386kFood & Nutrition$166kPhilanthropy$40kEducation$8kHousing & Shelter$4kHuman Services$4kPublic Benefit$3kReligion$3kOther$0
02FY2022 · 1 grant

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$3,010
Median grant
1
States reached
$2.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
OPENLANDS$3,010
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 (FY18–20, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 8%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%MANO A MANO FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER: $3k → 8%ROBERTI COMMUNITY HOUSE: $3k → 8%ROBERTI COMMUNITY HOUSE: $1k → 8%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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$593k · 14 repeat orgs$46k to everyone else

14 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2022, 13 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

14
37

Total granted

$593k
$46k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+15%
+105%

Still filing today

43%
30%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22
Food & NutritionEducationHuman ServicesEnvironmentScience & TechYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • O
    OPENLANDS
    6× · 2017–2022 · $363k · revenue +166%
  • AO
    ANGELIC ORGANICS LEARNING CENTER INC
    4× · 2017–2020 · $152k · revenue +15%
  • TC
    THE CENTER FOR HUMANS AND NATURE
    2× · 2019–2020 · $10k · revenue +11%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2017 · $15k
  • ML
    MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH
    one grant, 2019 · $3k
  • MA
    MANO A MANO FAMILY RESOURCE CENTERgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $3k · revenue +120%
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
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
2
Heartlands Conservancy

The mission of heartlands conservancy is to empower and colaborate with the people of southern illinois to advance and protect the health of our distinctive communities and nationally significant natural and cultural resources.

Environment
3
Plant Chicago Nfp

Plant Chicago's mission is to cultivate local circular economies. We envision a paradigm shift in production, consumption, and waste driven at the local level, generating equity and economic opportunity for all residents.

Food & Nutrition
4
Growing Home Inc

Growing home is a nonprofit usda-certified organic farm and workforce development center, serving the greater englewood community of chicago through innovative paid employment training and nutritious, affordable produce. we believe…

Employment
5
Glacial Lakes Conservancy Inc

Glacial Lakes Conservancy, as a land trust, is a nonprofit organization that, as part of its mission, actively works to conserve land by undertaking or assisting in land or conservation easement acquisitions.

Environment
6
Six Rivers Land Conservancy Fka Six Rivers Regional Land Conservancy

To conserve, sustain, and connect natural areas, land, and waters that make the places we live special

Environment
7
Land Conservation Foundation

To preserve and restore natural communities in east central illinois, to create interconnected corridors, to provide wildlife habitat, and connect people and nature for future generations.

Environment
8
Heart of the Lakes Ctr for Land Cons

Heart of the Lakes provides technical assistance, leadership training, and strategic communication tools that help organizations thrive - from grassroots land conservancies to larger regional conservation groups. Programs such as peer…

Environment
9
Illinois Environmental Council Education

To educate the public about environmental issues.

Environment
10
Chicago's Environmental Fund
—
11
Illinois Agricultural Leadership Foundation

To develop knowledgeable and effective leaders to become policy and decision makers for the agricultural industry.

Public Benefit
12
McHenry County Eco Farm Nfp

Teach people to grow food in responsible, sustainable ways while nurturing love and gratitude for the land and for each other. Programs are open to the public, free of charge. Food raised will be donated to food pantries.

Food & Nutrition
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Barrington Area Conservation Trust Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Roberti Community House. 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

19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 51 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
17/19
Grantees still filing
11/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OPENLANDS: $363,290 · OtherOPENLANDSFOREFRONT FOUNDATION: $39,000 · OtherFOREFRONT FOUNDATION+39 more: $59,608 · Other+39 moreANGELIC ORGANICS LEARNING CENTER INC: $151,636 · Food & NutritionANGELIC ORGANICS LEARNING C…+1 more: $1,250 · Food & NutritionTHE CENTER FOR HUMANS AND NATURE: $10,300 · Science & TechThe Roberti Community House: $3,500 · Human ServicesMANO A MANO FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER: $2,500 · Human ServicesBRUSHWOOD CENTER AT RYERSON WOODS: $3,250 · EnvironmentBARRINGTON AREA CONSERVATION TRUST INC: $1,500 · EnvironmentAAUW Nursery School: $1,000 · EducationTHE DA VINCI WALDORF SCHOOL: $600 · EducationBoys & Girls Club of Lake County: $1,500 · Youth Development
Other$461,898Food & Nutrition$152,886Science & Tech$10,300Human Services$6,000Environment$4,750Education$1,600Youth Development$1,500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetOPENLANDS: $363,290 over 6y, 2.3% of budgetANGELIC ORGANICS LEARNING CENTER INC: $151,636 over 4y, 3.5% of budgetTHE CENTER FOR HUMANS AND NATURE: $10,300 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetSMART FARM OF BARRINGTON: $6,000 over 3y, 1.2% of budgetThe Roberti Community House: $3,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetBRUSHWOOD CENTER AT RYERSON WOODS: $3,250 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetMANO A MANO FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER: $2,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetLUKE 311 SHARE CENTER NFP: $1,738 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetBoys & Girls Club of Lake County: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetRound Lake Area Chamber of Commerce: $1,500 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND: $1,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetAAUW Nursery School: $1,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTHE LAND CONSERVANCY OF MCHENRY COUNTY: $750 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMORAINE TOWNSHIP CHARITABLE FUND CHARITABLE FUND: $750 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE DA VINCI WALDORF SCHOOL: $600 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetFAITH IN PLACE: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DELTA INSTITUTE: $125 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 OPENLANDS ↗
  • Who funds ANGELIC ORGANICS LEARNING CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CENTER FOR HUMANS AND NATURE ↗
  • Who funds SMART FARM OF BARRINGTON ↗
  • Who funds The Roberti Community House ↗
  • Who funds BRUSHWOOD CENTER AT RYERSON WOODS ↗
  • Who funds MANO A MANO FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LUKE 311 SHARE CENTER NFP ↗
  • Who funds Boys & Girls Club of Lake County ↗
  • Who funds Round Lake Area Chamber of Commerce ↗
  • Who funds ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL GENERAL FUND ↗
  • Who funds BARRINGTON AREA CONSERVATION TRUST INC ↗
  • Who funds GROWING HEALTHY PEOPLE ↗
  • Who funds AAUW Nursery School ↗
  • Who funds THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF MCHENRY COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds MORAINE TOWNSHIP CHARITABLE FUND CHARITABLE FUND ↗
  • Who funds THE DA VINCI WALDORF SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds FAITH IN PLACE ↗

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.

Harold M & Adeline S …The Chicago Community…ForefrontOberweiler FoundationThe Lake County Commu…Grand Victoria Founda…The Lumpkin Family Fo…Gaylord and Dorothy D…AbbVie FoundationThe Gorter Family Fou…Hunter Family Foundat…John and Kathleen Sch…
Harold M & Adeline S Morrison Family FoundationIL17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Harold M & Adeline S Morrison Family Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Forefront · Oberweiler Foundation · The Lake County Community Foundation · Grand Victoria Foundation · The Lumpkin Family Foundation · Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation · AbbVie Foundation · The Gorter Family Foundation · Hunter Family Foundation · John and Kathleen Schreiber Foundation D/B/A Schreiber Philanthropy

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 Liberty Prairie funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Liberty Prairie. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Liberty Prairie?

    Find your warmest path to Liberty Prairie 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.

    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 51 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2022, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Liberty Prairie’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