· Private foundation
Lloyd a Fry Foundation
Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k221 grants · $626k
- $10k–50k97 grants · $2.7M
- $50k–250k75 grants · $5.8M
- $250k+1 grant · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| THE BARACK OBAMA FOUNDATION | $250,000 |
| METROPOLITAN FAMILY SERVICES | $200,000 |
| NEW VENTURE FUND | $150,000 |
| TEACH PLUS INCORPORATED | $125,000 |
| CHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | $125,000 |
| UIC COLLEGE OF EDUCATION CENTER FOR URBAN EDUCATION LEADERSHIP | $125,000 |
| INSTITUTE FOR NONVIOLENCE CHICAGO | $125,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CROWN FAMILY SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK POLICY AND PRACTI | $125,000 |
| LEADING EDUCATORS INC | $125,000 |
| ESPERANZA HEALTH CENTERS | $125,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CONSORTIUM ON SCHOOL RESEARCH | $125,000 |
| THE LEADERSHIP ACADEMY INC | $125,000 |
| TEACHING LAB | $125,000 |
| HEALTH AND MEDICINE POLICY RESEARCH GROUP | $120,000 |
| NEW LEADERS | $120,000 |
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 (FY18–25, $5.5M) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 99% 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 +30% since the first grant, against +14% for the ones you funded once.
403 repeat relationships — 257 still active in FY2025, 146 since wound down; 56 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $580k 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
CHICAGO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER9× · 2017–2025 · $1.3M · revenue +109%- EHESPERANZA HEALTH CENTERS9× · 2017–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +325%
- LELEADING EDUCATORS INC8× · 2018–2025 · $1.1M · revenue +108%
Funded once
- NLNew Leadersone grant, 2018 · $120k
- EOEQUAL OPPORTUNITY SCHOOLSone grant, 2022 · $100k · revenue -26%
- CRCommunity Restorative Justice Hubone grant, 2018 · $100k
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.
The chicago psychoanalytic institute transforms the lives of individuals, families and communities, using psychoanalytic knowledge to help them grow and thrive.
A better chicago is changing how chicago fights poverty by investing in bold ideas that create opportunity for our youth.
The organization's mission is to educate students for creative occupations in diverse fields of arts and media.
To inspire and prepare young people to succeed in a global economy
To achieve parity in economic opportunity for people of color by advancing multiracial leadership in corporate governance, expanding the talent pipline for executive-level management, and growing minority businesses.
Connecting and amplifying the power of individuals to build a just, equitable, and inclusive city.
The chicagoland chamber of commerce combines the power of people, with our legacy of leadership and business advocacy, to drive a dynamic economy. we focus on delivering value for our members, making chicagoland a world-class place to live…
The music institute of chicago ("music institute") leads people toward a lifelong engagement with music, by providing widely accessible resources for high quality music teaching, performing, and service activities.
Illinois college is a co-educational institution of higher education learning providing a four-year educational program leading to the baccalaureate degree. illinois college is a community committed to the highest standards of scholarship…
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…
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.
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…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Illinois Humanities Council Inc and the most unlike its peers is Prism Foundation. 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 33 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) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 2% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 1% 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.
534 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. 534 of the 659 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 CHICAGO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds ESPERANZA HEALTH CENTERS ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds LEADING EDUCATORS INC ↗
- Who funds THE BARACK OBAMA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds SHRIVER CENTER ON POVERTY LAW ↗
- Who funds INGENUITY INCORPORATED CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO FAMILY HEALTH CENTER INC ↗
- Who funds NEW LEADERS INC ↗
- Who funds Institute for Nonviolence Chicago ↗
- Who funds Community Counseling Centers of Chicago Inc ↗
- Who funds Chicago Symphony Orchestra ↗
- Who funds Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Rights ↗
- Who funds Metropolitan Family Services ↗
- Who funds NATIONAL EQUITY PROJECT ↗
- Who funds SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM ↗
- Who funds UNITING VOICES ↗
- Who funds JANE ADDAMS RESOURCE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds NEW TEACHER CENTER ↗
- Who funds National Louis University ↗
- Who funds Illinois College of Optometry ↗
- Who funds Chicago Jobs Council ↗
- Who funds MOBILE CARE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BELOVED COMMUNITY FAMILY WELLNESS CENTER ↗
- Who funds PCC COMMUNITY WELLNESS CENTER ↗
- Who funds GREATER WEST TOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ↗
- Who funds WOMEN EMPLOYED ↗
- Who funds The Cara Program ↗
- Who funds Marwen Foundation Inc ↗
- Who funds ADVANCE ILLINOIS NFP ↗
- Who funds INNER-CITY COMPUTER STARS FOUNDATION ↗
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: Polk Bros Foundation Inc · Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · Field Foundation of Illinois · Circle of Service Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Robert R McCormick Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · The Joyce Foundation · Walder Foundation · Chicago Foundation for Women · Alphawood Foundation · Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation
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 Lloyd a Fry 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.
- Saga Innovations Inc — 28% of income from government
- Massachusetts Audubon Society Inc — 1% of income from government
- Year Up Inc — 0% of income from government
- Oxfam-America Inc — 0% 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 Lloyd a Fry Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Lloyd a Fry 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.