· Public charity
Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org
PIE builds the capacity of mission-driven organizations to evaluate impact, promote learning, and facilitate equitable change.
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2019–2022.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $15,070 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $45,520 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $30,450 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| The Children's Advocacy Center of North and Northwest Cook | $8,500 |
| Crisis Center for South Suburbia | $6,570 |
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 (FY19–22, $97k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% 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.
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 +74% since the first grant, against +57% for the ones you funded once.
3 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (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 FY2022, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k 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
- CCCASA CENTRAL SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION2× · 2019–2020 · $17k · revenue +26%
- CCCrisis Center for South Suburbia2× · 2020–2022 · $16k · revenue +126%
CHICAGO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER2× · 2019–2020 · $16k · revenue +74%
Funded once
- AAllceusone grant, 2019 · $21k
- CCCourageous Communicationone grant, 2019 · $20k
- YNYOUTH NETWORK COUNCIL DBA ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON YOUTHgraduatedone grant, 2020 · $13k · revenue +97%
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.
To assist children who have been victims of abuse
Children's center serves children, youth and families through comprehensive mental health services.
Founded in 1883, brightpoint (formerly known as children's home & aid) is a leading statewide organization supporting families so children can thrive.
Administering an array of critical, intensive therapeutic interventions and/or facilitation services to emotionally and behaviorally disturbed clients for whom DCFS is legally responsible in order to stabilize their traditional or home of…
Provide Counselors in Child Abuse Situations
Child advocacy organization that focuses on the prevention of child sexual abuse and youth suicide.
The organization is dedicated to providing a full range of services to help eliminate child abuse and neglect. the organization strives to build healthy families through prevention, intervention, treatment and education about alternatives…
Dcac works to improve the lives of children traumatized by sexual abuse, neglect and violence-as well as those who are at high-risk with prevention, education, and direct services. our mission is to prevent abuse strengthen families…
The child advocacy center of greater rochester delivers excellence in child abuse response, healing and prevention through collaborative service, awareness, education and leadership.
Our mission is to support child abuse investigations, provide access to critical services, and raise community awareness to prevent and reduce child abuse and neglect in southern missouri. see conintuation on schedule o.we envision a…
Alternatives, inc.'s mission is to facilitate personal development,strengthen family relationships and enhance the community's well being. serving over 3,000 youth and families annually, the organization offers a range of counseling and…
Provide Forensic Interviews and Therapy Services
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chicago Children's Advocacy Center and the most unlike its peers is Trauma Institute & Child Trauma Institute Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
16 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. 16 of the 19 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
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 CASA CENTRAL SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Crisis Center for South Suburbia ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds YOUTH NETWORK COUNCIL DBA ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON YOUTH ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S RESEARCH TRIANGLE ↗
- Who funds Near North Health Service Corporation ↗
- Who funds JUVENILE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds TRAUMA INSTITUTE & CHILD TRAUMA INSTITUTE INC ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF NORTH & NORTHWEST COOK COUNTY ↗
- Who funds ZACHARIAS SEXUAL ABUSE CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHRISTOPHER HOUSE ↗
- Who funds TEEN PARENT CONNECTION INC ↗
- Who funds MUJERES LATINAS EN ACCION ↗
- Who funds NEW MOMS INC ↗
- Who funds BETWEEN FRIENDS ↗
- Who funds FAMILY FOCUS LEGACY ↗
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: United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Visiting Nurse Association of Chicago (Aka) Vna Foundation · Circle of Service Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Blowitz-Ridgeway Foundation · Northwestern Memorial HealthCare Group · Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · North Shore Exchange Nfp · The Pelino Charitable Foundation · George M Eisenberg Foundation for Charities · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc
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 Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org 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.
- Trauma Institute & Child Trauma Institute 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 Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org?
Find your warmest path to Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org 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.