Skip to content
Oak Park-River Forest Community Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Community foundation

Oak Park-River Forest Community Foundation

Unite community members to mobilize resources to advance a racially just society and equitable outcomes for residents of oak park, river forest and surrounding communities.

$4.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
73
Grants FY2025still arriving
11
States reached
$535k
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 2025.

Arts & Culture$2.6MEducation$2.3MHealth$2.2MRecreation & Sports$1.8MCommunity Improvement$1.3MScience & Tech$1.2MPhilanthropy$1.1MHuman Services$1.0MOther$0
02FY2025 · 73 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 73 grants below total $2,624,168, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,335,727 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,711,559 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k21 grants · $145k
  • $10k–50k44 grants · $820k
  • $50k–250k6 grants · $637k
  • $250k+2 grants · $1.0M
$15,000
Median grant
11
States reached
$61M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
LAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY$535,000
HEPH FOUNDATION$487,332
ANIMAL CARE LEAGUE$169,717
CHICAGO PUBLIC MEDIA INC$125,000
THRIVE COUNSELING CENTER$107,480
PARK DISTRICT OF OAK PARK$101,112
SEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD$81,014
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS FUND$52,441
GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL$42,250
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST FOUNDATION$40,000
THE FIREHOUSE DREAM INC$34,750
BEYOND HUNGER$33,450
HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION$30,726
CHICAGO COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS$30,000
OAK PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY$25,757
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 (FY17–25, $883k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 94% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%THE NEHEMIAH COMMUNITY PROJECT: $25k → 6%HARMONY COMMUNITY CARES: $27k → 14%THE NEHEMIAH COMMUNITY PROJECT: $14k → 6%HARMONY COMMUNITY CARES: $27k → 14%HARMONY COMMUNITY CARES: $27k → 14%TALLER DE JOSE: $20k → 14%FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN - CHICAGO: $17k → 14%FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN - CHICAGO: $11k → 14%HARMONY COMMUNITY CARES: $10k → 14%NORTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER: $18k → 14%FRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN - CHICAGO: $25k → 14%YOUTH OUTREACH SERVICES: $22k → 14%THE NEHEMIAH COMMUNITY PROJECT: $20k → 14%REAL FOODS COLLECTIVE: $11k → 14%THE NEHEMIAH COMMUNITY PROJECT: $10k → 14%THE NEHEMIAH COMMUNITY PROJECT: $10k → 14%CICERO BERWYN STICKNEY FOOD PANTRY: $10k → 14%EQUITY AND TRANSFORMATION: $12k → 14%AGING CARE CONNECTIONS: $9k → 14%SARAH'S INN 309: $16k → 14%SARAH'S INN 309: $16k → 14%SARAH'S INN: $13k → 14%SARAH'S INN 309: $13k → 14%SARAH'S INN: $13k → 14%NEW MOMS INC: $30k → 14%AUSTIN CHILDCARE PROVIDERS NETWORK: $23k → 14%AUSTIN CHILDCARE PROVIDERS NETWORK: $17k → 14%AUSTIN CHILDCARE PROVIDERS NETWORK: $15k → 14%BETHEL NEW LIFE INC: $15k → 14%NEW MOMS INC: $13k → 14%NEW MOMS INC: $13k → 14%NEW MOMS INC: $13k → 14%NEW MOMS INC: $12k → 14%SARAH'S INN: $10k → 14%SOUTH SUBURBAN PADS: $10k → 14%HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION: $29k → 14%HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION: $23k → 14%HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION: $19k → 14%OPEN ARMS MINISTRY: $15k → 14%SMART LOVE FAMILY SERVICES: $10k → 14%SMART LOVE FAMILY SERVICES: $10k → 14%AND RISE WOMEN INC (AKA &RISE): $11k → 14%SISTERHOUSE: $27k → 14%OAK PARK & RIVER FOREST DAY NURSERY: $21k → 14%SISTERHOUSE: $12k → 14%SISTERHOUSE: $11k → 14%KINFOLK COLAB: $10k → 14%OAK PARK RIVER FOREST DAY NURSERY: $10k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
SD
IA
IN
CA
AZ
OK
GA
TX
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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$13M · 100 repeat orgs$1.9M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against +21% for those funded once.

100 repeat relationships: 56 still active in FY2025, 44 since wound down; 17 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

100
69

Total granted

$13M
$1.7M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
+21%

Still filing today

83%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $233k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationHealthArts & CultureHousing & ShelterYouth 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

  • TH
    THE HEPH FOUNDATION
    5× · 2021–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +7% · 77% of their budget
  • CP
    CHICAGO PUBLIC MEDIA INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $980k · revenue +38%
  • SG
    SEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD
    8× · 2017–2025 · $825k · revenue +25%

Funded once

  • UB
    Ulta Beauty Charitable Foundation
    one grant, 2017 · $865k · revenue +24%
  • DU
    DEPAUL UNIVERSITY
    one grant, 2021 · $50k · revenue +11%
  • FL
    FUTURE LEADERS OF CHICAGO
    one grant, 2019 · $34k
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
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
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
Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute

The chicago psychoanalytic institute transforms the lives of individuals, families and communities, using psychoanalytic knowledge to help them grow and thrive.

Social Science
4
Chicago United for Equity

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

Civil Rights
5
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
6
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

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.

Education
7
Chicago Youth Centers

To provide high-quality early learning and out-of-school time enrichment in under-resourced neighborhoods to holistically support children of all ages, their families, and their communities.

Youth Development
8
True Chicago
Arts & Culture
9
The University of Chicago Charter School Corporation

To Prepare Students for Success in Four-Year Colleges.

Education
10
Chicago Children's Advocacy Center

The chicago children's advocacy center unites public, private, and community partners to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of abused children.

Crime & Legal
11
Kipp Chicago Schools

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…

Education
12
Thrive Chicago Nfp

Thrive chicago's mission is to prepare chicago's youth for a vibrant future by aligning efforts and outcomes from cradle to career.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Health and Medicine Policy Research Group; the most unlike its peers is The Sapling 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

157 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. 157 of the 188 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.

6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
44
Early backer (in before they grew)
153/157
Grantees still filing
116/157
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ANIMAL CARE LEAGUE: $774,247 · OtherANIMAL CARE LEAGUEHOUSING FORWARD: $274,843 · OtherNorthwestern University: $220,000 · OtherBEYOND HUNGER: $224,621 · Other+116 more: $4,943,524 · Other+116 moreUniversity of Notre Dame du Lac: $1,550,000 · EducationUniversity of Notre…LAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $645,000 · EducationLAWRENCE TECHNOLOGI…University of Chicago: $211,477 · EducationUniversity of Chica…Community Connections Fund: $102,441 · EducationCOLLABORATION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD: $99,500 · Education+20 more: $367,161 · Education+20 moreCHICAGO PUBLIC MEDIA INC: $980,350 · Arts & CultureCHICAGO PUBLIC …FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT TRUST: $518,303 · Arts & CultureFRANK LLOYD WRI…Kenneth C Griffin Museum of Science and Industry: $325,000 · Arts & CultureKenneth C Griff…Growing Community Media NFP: $113,512 · Arts & CultureSPECULATIVE LITERATURE FOUNDATION INC: $94,389 · Arts & Culture+10 more: $349,785 · Arts & Culture+10 moreTHE HEPH FOUNDATION: $1,804,832 · Community ImprovementTHE HEPH FOU…TED FOUNDATION INC: $125,000 · Community ImprovementTED FOUNDATI…+2 more: $15,000 · Community ImprovementUlta Beauty Charitable Foundation: $865,321 · HealthUlta Beauty …THRIVE COUNSELING CENTER: $710,177 · HealthTHRIVE COUNS…Oak Park River Forest Infant Welfare S: $122,731 · HealthOak Park Riv…+13 more: $221,500 · Health+13 moreTHE DUPAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $815,000 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC: $137,340 · PhilanthropyTHE SAPLING FOUNDATION: $100,000 · PhilanthropyPARKS FOUNDATION OF OAK PARK: $91,500 · PhilanthropySEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD: $825,318 · EnvironmentSPLASH INTERNATIONAL: $40,000 · Environment+2 more: $27,244 · Environment
Other$6,437,235Education$2,975,579Arts & Culture$2,381,339Community Improvement$1,944,832Health$1,919,729Philanthropy$1,143,840Environment$892,562

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE HEPH FOUNDATION: $1,804,832 over 5y, 77% of budgetUniversity of Notre Dame du Lac: $1,550,000 over 7y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO PUBLIC MEDIA INC: $980,350 over 8y, 0.4% of budgetSEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD: $825,318 over 8y, 16% of budgetTHE DUPAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $815,000 over 1y, 4.4% of budgetANIMAL CARE LEAGUE: $774,247 over 8y, 10% of budgetTHRIVE COUNSELING CENTER: $710,177 over 8y, 3.9% of budgetLAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $645,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetFRANK LLOYD WRIGHT TRUST: $518,303 over 8y, 2.6% of budgetKenneth C Griffin Museum of Science and Industry: $325,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetHOUSING FORWARD: $274,843 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetBEYOND HUNGER: $224,621 over 8y, 2.0% of budgetNorthwestern University: $220,000 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $211,477 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS: $180,500 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetHEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION: $179,759 over 5y, 0.5% of budgetYEMBA INC: $146,950 over 6y, 26% of budgetUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC: $137,340 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetTED FOUNDATION INC: $125,000 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetOak Park River Forest Infant Welfare S: $122,731 over 5y, 1.9% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S CLINIC 'SERVING CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES': $116,321 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetGrowing Community Media NFP: $113,512 over 5y, 1.8% of budgetOAK PARK REGIONAL HOUSING CENTER INC: $108,282 over 8y, 1.8% of budgetCommunity Connections Fund: $102,441 over 2y, 57% of budgetCOLLABORATION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD: $99,500 over 4y, 3.2% of budgetCHILDREN'S RESEARCH TRIANGLE: $98,000 over 7y, 1.3% of budgetSARAH'S INN: $95,042 over 8y, 0.8% of budgetSPECULATIVE LITERATURE FOUNDATION INC: $94,389 over 5y, 29% of budgetNEW MOMS INC: $93,287 over 7y, 0.5% of budgetALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS IN SUBURBAN COOK COUNTY: $93,000 over 6y, 1.1% of budgetHARMONY COMMUNITY CARES NFP: $91,850 over 4y, 2.8% of budgetPARKS FOUNDATION OF OAK PARK: $91,500 over 5y, 5.5% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE OAK PARK CONSERVATORY: $87,802 over 8y, 9.7% of budgetOak Park Festival Theatre: $83,094 over 8y, 4.6% of budgetNEHEMIAH COMMUNITY PROJECT: $79,200 over 5y, 36% of budgetWest Suburban Special Recreation Foundation Inc: $78,110 over 8y, 16% of budgetTHE WEST COOK YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS INC: $76,250 over 6y, 1.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF THE CHILDREN-PORTLAND: $75,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetPING Providing Instruments For The Next Generation: $72,463 over 6y, 15% of budgetThe Nineteenth Century Charitable Association: $72,432 over 7y, 4.0% of budgetHEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S TRUST: $71,804 over 3y, 47% of budgetSISTERHOUSE: $63,500 over 5y, 5.7% of budgetOAK PARK AREA ARTS COUNCIL: $61,007 over 5y, 7.5% of budgetOAK PARK RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY OF CONGREGATIONS: $59,969 over 8y, 1.6% of budgetNAMI METRO-SUBURBAN INC: $58,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetTHE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF OAK PARK AND RIVER FOREST: $57,860 over 8y, 7.4% of budgetTHE CATECHESIS OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD INC: $56,829 over 5y, 1.4% of budgetAustin Childcare Providers Network: $54,750 over 3y, 4.6% 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 THE HEPH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds University of Notre Dame du Lac ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO PUBLIC MEDIA INC ↗
  • Who funds Ulta Beauty Charitable Foundation ↗
  • Who funds SEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD ↗
  • Who funds THE DUPAGE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds ANIMAL CARE LEAGUE ↗
  • Who funds THRIVE COUNSELING CENTER ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT TRUST ↗
  • Who funds Kenneth C Griffin Museum of Science and Industry ↗
  • Who funds HOUSING FORWARD ↗
  • Who funds BEYOND HUNGER ↗
  • Who funds Northwestern University ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS ↗
  • Who funds HEPHZIBAH CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION ↗
  • Who funds YEMBA INC ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC ↗
  • Who funds TED FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds Oak Park River Forest Infant Welfare S ↗
  • Who funds THE CHILDREN'S CLINIC 'SERVING CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES' ↗
  • Who funds Growing Community Media NFP ↗
  • Who funds OAK PARK REGIONAL HOUSING CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds Community Connections Fund ↗
  • Who funds THE SAPLING FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds COLLABORATION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S RESEARCH TRIANGLE ↗
  • Who funds SARAH'S INN ↗
  • Who funds SPECULATIVE LITERATURE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds NEW MOMS INC ↗
  • Who funds ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS IN SUBURBAN COOK COUNTY ↗
  • Who funds HARMONY COMMUNITY CARES NFP ↗

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.

Good Heart Work Smart…United Way of Metropo…Healthy Communities F…Westlake Health Found…The Chicago Community…Robert R McCormick Fo…Polk Bros Foundation …John D and Catherine …George M Eisenberg Fo…The Christopher Famil…Helen V Brach Foundat…Chicago Foundation fo…
Good Heart Work Smart FoundationIL82.9× affinity38 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Good Heart Work Smart Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Healthy Communities Foundation · Westlake Health Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · George M Eisenberg Foundation for Charities · The Christopher Family Foundation · Helen V Brach Foundation · Chicago Foundation for Women

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 Oak Park-River Forest Community Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oak Park-River Forest Community Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • Friends of the Children-Portland: 5% of income from government
  • Amherst College Trustees: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
50report 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.

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 188 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Oak Park-River Forest’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