Skip to content
Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org

PIE builds the capacity of mission-driven organizations to evaluate impact, promote learning, and facilitate equitable change.

$46k
Granted FY2022
2
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$9k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2022.

Human Services$67kHealth$53kCrime & Legal$32kCivil Rights$20kYouth Development$20kCommunity Improvement$10kEducation$8k
02FY2022 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 2 grants below total $15,070, the rows itemized in this filing. The $45,520 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $30,450 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.
$8,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$576k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
The Children's Advocacy Center of North and Northwest Cook$8,500
Crisis Center for South Suburbia$6,570
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%Trauma Institute & Child Trauma Institute Inc: $10k → 12%Juvenile Protective Association: $10k → 14%Crisis Center for South Suburbia: $10k → 14%Crisis Center for South Suburbia: $7k → 14%Between Friends: $5k → 14%Casa Central Social Services: $9k → 14%Casa Central Social Services: $8k → 14%Christopher House: $8k → 14%Family Focus: $5k → 14%New Moms: $6k → 14%Mujeres Latinas en Accion: $7k → 14%ICOY (Illinois Coalition on Youth): $13k → 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.
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.

23%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$49k · 3 repeat orgs$160k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +74% since the first grant, against +57% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
15

Total granted

$49k
$152k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+74%
+57%

Still filing today

100%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 44% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $9k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22
Human ServicesCrime & LegalHealthOther
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

  • CC
    CASA CENTRAL SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION
    2× · 2019–2020 · $17k · revenue +26%
  • CC
    Crisis Center for South Suburbia
    2× · 2020–2022 · $16k · revenue +126%
  • CHICAGO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER
    2× · 2019–2020 · $16k · revenue +74%

Funded once

  • A
    Allceus
    one grant, 2019 · $21k
  • CC
    Courageous Communication
    one grant, 2019 · $20k
  • YN
    YOUTH NETWORK COUNCIL DBA ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON YOUTHgraduated
    one grant, 2020 · $13k · revenue +97%
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
Childrens Advocacy Center of East Central Illinois

To assist children who have been victims of abuse

Crime & Legal
2
Children's Center

Children's center serves children, youth and families through comprehensive mental health services.

—
3
Children's Home & Aid Society of Ill

Founded in 1883, brightpoint (formerly known as children's home & aid) is a leading statewide organization supporting families so children can thrive.

Human Services
4
Center for Family Services

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…

Human Services
5
Child Advocacy Center of Mchenry Co Inc

Provide Counselors in Child Abuse Situations

Crime & Legal
6
Indiana Center for Prevention of Youth Abuse and Suicide

Child advocacy organization that focuses on the prevention of child sexual abuse and youth suicide.

Youth Development
7
Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno Inc

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…

Crime & Legal
8
Denver Children's Advocacy Center

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…

Employment
9
The Child Advocacy Center of Greater Rochester

The child advocacy center of greater rochester delivers excellence in child abuse response, healing and prevention through collaborative service, awareness, education and leadership.

Crime & Legal
10
The Child Advocacy Center Inc

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…

Crime & Legal
11
Alternatives Inc

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…

Health
12
ChildSafe Center - Cac

Provide Forensic Interviews and Therapy Services

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Chicago Children's Advocacy Center; 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.
04the grantee network

16 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. 16 of the 19 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)
7
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
15/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CASA CENTRAL SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION: $16,730 · Human ServicesCASA CENTRAL SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATIONCrisis Center for South Suburbia: $16,070 · Human ServicesCrisis Center for South SuburbiaYOUTH NETWORK COUNCIL DBA ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON YOUTH: $12,500 · Human ServicesYOUTH NETWORK COUNCIL DBA ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON …TRAUMA INSTITUTE & CHILD TRAUMA INSTITUTE INC: $10,000 · Human ServicesTRAUMA INSTITUTE & CHILD TRAUMA INSTITUTE INCJUVENILE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION: $10,000 · Human ServicesJUVENILE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATIONCHRISTOPHER HOUSE: $7,500 · Human ServicesCHRISTOPHER HOUSEMUJERES LATINAS EN ACCION: $7,000 · Human ServicesMUJERES LATINAS EN ACCIONNEW MOMS INC: $6,482 · Human ServicesNEW MOMS INCBETWEEN FRIENDS: $5,482 · Human ServicesBETWEEN FRIENDSFAMILY FOCUS LEGACY: $5,482 · Human ServicesFAMILY FOCUS LEGACYAllceus: $20,665 · OtherAllceusCourageous Communication: $20,000 · OtherCourageous CommunicationCHILDREN'S RESEARCH TRIANGLE: $11,482 · OtherCHILDREN'S RESEARCH TRIANGLEVega Partners LLC: $10,000 · OtherVega Partners LLCTEEN PARENT CONNECTION INC: $7,000 · OtherTEEN PARENT CONNECTION INCCHICAGO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $15,712 · Crime & LegalCHICAGO CHILDREN'…CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF NORTH & NORTHWEST COOK COUNTY: $8,500 · Crime & LegalCHILDREN'S ADVOCA…ZACHARIAS SEXUAL ABUSE CENTER: $7,500 · Crime & LegalZACHARIAS SEXUAL …Near North Health Service Corporation: $10,482 · Health
Human Services$97,246Other$69,147Crime & Legal$31,712Health$10,482

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

25%50%75%100%$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCASA CENTRAL SOCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION: $16,730 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCrisis Center for South Suburbia: $16,070 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCHICAGO CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER: $15,712 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetYOUTH NETWORK COUNCIL DBA ILLINOIS COLLABORATION ON YOUTH: $12,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCHILDREN'S RESEARCH TRIANGLE: $11,482 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetNear North Health Service Corporation: $10,482 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTRAUMA INSTITUTE & CHILD TRAUMA INSTITUTE INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetJUVENILE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCHILDREN'S ADVOCACY CENTER OF NORTH & NORTHWEST COOK COUNTY: $8,500 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetCHRISTOPHER HOUSE: $7,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTEEN PARENT CONNECTION INC: $7,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetMUJERES LATINAS EN ACCION: $7,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNEW MOMS INC: $6,482 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetBETWEEN FRIENDS: $5,482 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetFAMILY FOCUS LEGACY: $5,482 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.

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.

United Way of Metropo…Visiting Nurse Associ…Circle of Service Fou…The Chicago Community…Blowitz-Ridgeway Foun…Northwestern Memorial…Arie and Ida Crown Me…North Shore Exchange …The Pelino Charitable…George M Eisenberg Fo…Robert R McCormick Fo…Polk Bros Foundation …
United Way of Metropolitan Chicago IncIL25.7× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’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 →median 0%
  • Trauma Institute & Child Trauma Institute Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
7report 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 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.

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 19 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) 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 Planning Implementation and Evaluation Org’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