Skip to content

· Public charity

P33

Tranform chicago into a tier one technology and innovation hub and promote inclusive economic growth.

$438k
Granted FY2025still arriving
15
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$100k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Science & Tech$2.4MCommunity Improvement$314kEducation$310kRecreation & Sports$275kHealth$163kEmployment$40kYouth Development$40kArts & Culture$38kOther$0
02FY2025 · 15 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 15 grants below total $410,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $437,500 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $27,500 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

  • $10k–50k14 grants · $310k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $100k
$25,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
PULSE CHARTER CONNECT INC$100,000
ACORN GENETICS INC$25,000
TRUEFIKTION LLC$25,000
BANRION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC$25,000
ARRINGTON AND MEDINA LLC$25,000
MOMENTUM COFFEE HOLDING INC$25,000
ROUND GROW INC$25,000
SALUBATA INC$25,000
THE RB PREMIUM PRODUCTS LLC$25,000
CRICKET HILL INC$25,000
TRINUM APPS CO$25,000
THE DEV DIFFERENCE LLC$25,000
BRACKETOLOGYTV INC$15,000
SIGN NERDS INC$10,000
NATIONAL TALENT COLLABORATIVE$10,000
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 (FY21–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 84% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%GRAAPHENE INC: $25k → 10%RESOURCEFUL INC: $50k → 11%BUOY PRICING INC: $25k → 12%OASIS CAPITAL INVESTMENT GROUP INC: $25k → 14%BEACON APP INC: $25k → 17%KINKOFA INC: $25k → 14%JUSTAIR SOLUTIONS: $25k → 11%FORESIGHT REPORTING INC: $25k → 15%EDURAIN LLC: $25k → 21%GABA INC: $25k → 14%WAVE THERAPEUTICS: $25k → 10%BABYGAMI CO: $100k → 7%DRIPB LLC: $25k → 8%FILLOW INC: $25k → 8%BRIDGE TO COLLEGE INC: $25k → 14%FLASHHOOPS INC: $25k → 18%ASL ASPIRE INC: $25k → 19%NEBULONIUM INC: $25k → 10%SMART CHARTS LLC: $100k → 10%FEATURESFIRST LLC: $50k → 14%ATHLYTIC INC: $25k → 21%HUBLY INC: $25k → 7%FLORASENSE INC: $25k → 14%DABA MARKETS INC: $50k → 10%OPNR INC: $25k → 21%PRINCIPLE BARBERS LLC: $30k → 14%BANRION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC: $25k → 10%IDA ARTISAN ICE CREAM AND TREATS LLC: $25k → 14%SALUBATA INC: $25k → 10%THE VIRGIE LLC: $25k → 14%THE DEV DIFFERENCE LLC: $25k → 10%CYBER POP-UP LLC: $100k → 14%TRUEFIKTION LLC: $25k → 14%HYFE FOODS INC: $25k → 14%MARTIAL ARTS WORLD INC: $25k → 14%PROJECT 83 INC: $50k → 14%SCRIPT HEALTH PBC: $25k → 14%FLAMINGO GROUP INC: $25k → 14%AETERNAL UPCYCLING INC: $25k → 14%BALODANA LLC - BALODANA FASHION SERIES: $25k → 14%PLASIA LLC: $25k → 14%AEROSTAR CONSULTING CORPORATION: $25k → 14%NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: $275k → 14%THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO BOOTH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: $125k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: $125k → 14%PULSE CHARTER CONNECT INC: $100k → 14%KAOSHI INC: $26k → 14%BLIP ENERGY INC: $50k → 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

IL
MI
NY
NV
IN
CA
MO
DE
KS
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.

14%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$500k · 5 repeat orgs$3.1M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +34% since the first grant, against +4% for those funded once.

5 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 13 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

5
99

Total granted

$500k
$2.8M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+4%

Still filing today

20%
6%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 30% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $285k went to new ones.

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

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementEducationRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • University of Chicago
    2× · 2021–2022 · $250k · revenue +34%
  • PC
    PULSE CHARTER CONNECT INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $125k
  • CH
    CRICKET HILL INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $50k

Funded once

  • Northwestern University
    one grant, 2022 · $275k · revenue +4%
  • CP
    CYBER POP-UP LLC
    one grant, 2022 · $120k
  • SC
    SMART CHARTS LLC
    one grant, 2023 · $100k
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
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce

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…

—
2
The Chicago Innovation Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadephia

The chamber of commerce for greater philadelphia (the chamber) brings area businesses and civic leaders together to promote growth and create opportunity in our region. our members represent eleven counties, three states, and roughly…

—
4
Northern Illinois University Foundation

The niu foundation's mission is to energize and connect the private sector with the niu community to secure and steward resources that support the future and growth of niu.

Education
5
Loyola University of Chicago

We are chicago's jesuit, catholic university - a diverse community seeking god in all things and working to expand knowledge in the service of humanity through learning, justice, and faith.

Education
6
Illinois Chamber of Commerce

The unifying leader of policies that support growth in illinois' dynamic and diverse economy. this is done through various means, one of which is aggressively advocate the interest of business. its vision is a vibrant and prosperous future…

—
7
True Chicago
Arts & Culture
8
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering Inc

To provide leadership and support for the national effort to increase the representation of successful african american, native american and latinx women and men in engineering and technology, math, and science-based careers.

Civil Rights
9
Cook County Chamber
Philanthropy
10
Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce

The nashville area chamber of commerce facilitates community leadership to create economic prosperity.

—
11
National Association of College and University Business Officers

The usual public activitites of the national association of college and univsersity business officers (nacubo) are to develop, promote, and improve business and financial principles and practices in the administration of institutions of…

—
12
The Economic Club of Chicago

The Economic Club of Chicago connects global leaders across generations and from all backgrounds to foster independent dialogue on the most important issues facing the world.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is P33; the most unlike its peers is National Talent Collaborative. 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

8 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. 8 of the 117 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

PULSE CHARTER CONNECT INC: $125,000 · OtherCYBER POP-UP LLC: $120,000 · Other+108 more: $2,767,129 · Other+108 moreNorthwestern University: $275,000 · Recreation & SportsUniversity of Chicago: $250,000 · EducationTHE GRAY MATTER EXPERIENCE INC: $10,000 · EducationP33: $35,000 · Community ImprovementWORLD BUSINESS CHICAGO: $25,000 · Community ImprovementNCIF NFP INC: $16,666 · Community ImprovementNATIONAL TALENT COLLABORATIVE: $10,000 · Community Improvement
Other$3,012,129Recreation & Sports$275,000Education$260,000Community Improvement$86,666

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 budgetNorthwestern University: $275,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $250,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetP33: $35,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetWORLD BUSINESS CHICAGO: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetMEXICAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERC: $12,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetTHE GRAY MATTER EXPERIENCE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.7% 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 Northwestern University ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds P33 ↗

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.

Vilcap IncTX15.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Vilcap Inc · Entrepreneur Startup Business Development Corporation

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 P33 funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from P33. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%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
    0get no government money at all
    1report 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 117 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 P33’s filings →

    More from the funding graph