Skip to content
Rochelle Area Community Foundation at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Community foundation

Rochelle Area Community Foundation

To provide grants to various organizations supporting the arts, education, health and community

$179k
Granted FY2020
13
Grants FY2020
1
States reached
$28k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

60% of Rochelle Area Community Foundation’s FY2025 grant dollars went to Rochelle Area Community Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2025 names 7 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2020, the last year Rochelle Area Community Foundation named its own grantees at scale: 13 organizations, $163k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

0
’17
1
’19
13
’20
2
’21
2
’22
1
’23
4
’24
7
’25

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

01What it funds
0185% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Food & Nutrition$148kArts & Culture$75kHuman Services$67kHousing & Shelter$43kYouth Development$30kRecreation & Sports$24kEducation$19kHealth$18kOther$0
02FY2020 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 13 grants below total $163,300, the rows itemized in this filing. The $179,183 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $15,883 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 · FY2020

  • Under $10k4 grants · $25k
  • $10k–50k9 grants · $139k
$12,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$5.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ROCHELLE CHRISTIAN FOOD PANTRY$27,650
KITCHEN TABLE INC$17,900
FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT$17,500
FLAGG-ROCHELLE COMMUNITY PARK DISTRICT$15,000
4-C COMMUNITY COORDINATED CHILD CARE$13,900
NORTHERN IL FOOD BANK$12,800
HOPE OF OGLE COUNTY$12,000
HUB CITY SENIOR CITIZENS INC$12,000
LIFESCAPE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC$10,000
VILLAGE OF PROGRESS INC$8,000
BELIEVE IN THE CHILDREN INC$6,000
ROCHELLE RESCUE MISSION$5,550
SINNISSIPPI CENTERS INC$5,000
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:

Its human-services grants (FY20–25, $59k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 23% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%4-C COMMUNITY COORDINATED CHILD CARE: $14k → 13%HUB CITY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $12k → 9%HOPE OF OGLE COUNTY: $12k → 9%HUB CITY SENIOR CENTR: $7k → 9%VILLAGE OF PROGRESS INC: $8k → 9%BELIEVE IN THE CHILDREN INC: $6k → 9%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.

67%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$487k · 7 repeat orgs$243k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2020, 1 since wound down; 20 grantees were first funded in FY2020 (too recent to call). Read against FY2020, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$487k
$9k

Still filing today

86%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 65% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $22k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesFood & NutritionHousing & ShelterHealthEmploymentOther
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

  • NI
    NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK
    5× · 2020–2025 · $43k · revenue +8%
  • HC
    HUB CITY SENIOR CITIZENS INC
    2× · 2020–2025 · $19k · revenue +38%
  • SC
    SINNISSIPPI CENTERS INC
    2× · 2020–2024 · $18k · revenue +124%

Funded once

  • CB
    CRESTON BOOSTER CLUB
    one grant, 2019 · $9k
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
The Rochelle Center

To offer meaningful opportunities to adults with disabilities and their families so they may achieve their goals for quality lives and community inclusion.

Employment
2
Ravenswood Community Services Inc

Ravenswood community services ("rcs") operates a food pantry and community kitchen for those in need of emergency food on chicago's north side.

Human Services
3
Helping Hands Chore Service Inc

Home care services for older/disabled adults

Human Services
4
Roselle Community Food Pantry

Provide food to residents of Roselle, Medinah, and Bloomingdale to those that are in need.

—
5
Ritchie County Integrated Family Services

The organization functions as a senior citizens center supported by federal, state, and local grants and donations to provide nutrition programs, transportation, and adult day care in home.

Human Services
6
Roseland Christian Ministries Center

Ministry services are provided throguh a food pantry, interim housing, church and youth programs, a thrift shop, and other community programs for the benefit of the Roseland community.

—
7
Lower Chattahoochee Direct Service

The organization provides meals for elderly and disadvantaged individuals.

Human Services
8
Hockley County Senior Citizens Association Inc

The organization operates a senior center, providing social services, meals, and activities to the senior residents of hockley county.

—
9
Shalom Center of Interfaith Network of Kenosha County Inc

Programs designed to serve the community's needs including a soup kitchen, family shelter, inns, food pantry, and other services.

Human Services
10
Hope Helps Inc

To prevent and reduce hunger and homelessness in central florida by equipping individuals and families to become self-sufficient through housing, outreach, prevention, and education.

Human Services
11
Community Kitchen

Food service for the poor, economically disadvantaged, and elderly.

Food & Nutrition
12
New Hope Services Inc

Provide services in response to individual need

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Village of Progress Inc; the most unlike its peers is Pegasus Special Riders 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

15 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. 15 of the 29 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
9/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OTHER VARIOUS GRANTS: $276,728 · OtherOTHER VARIOUS GRANTSROCHELLE CHRISTIAN FOOD PANTRY: $57,650 · OtherROCHELLE CHRISTIAN FOOD PANTRYPEGASUS SPECIAL RIDERS INC: $30,000 · OtherPEGASUS SPECIAL RIDERS INCKITCHEN TABLE INC: $25,400 · OtherROCHELLE CHRISTIAN FOOD PANTRY: $24,678 · Other+12 more: $114,818 · Other+12 moreROCHELLE AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $168,045 · PhilanthropyROCHELLE AREA COMMUNI…HUB CITY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $19,352 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY COORDINATED CHILD CARE INC: $13,900 · Human ServicesHOPE OF OGLE COUNTY: $12,000 · Human ServicesVILLAGE OF PROGRESS INC: $8,000 · Human ServicesBELIEVE IN THE CHILDREN INC: $6,000 · Human ServicesNORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK: $43,300 · Food & NutritionLIFESCAPE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $10,000 · Food & NutritionROCHELLE RESCUE MISSION: $46,600 · Housing & ShelterHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF OGLE COUNTY: $6,000 · Housing & ShelterSINNISSIPPI CENTERS INC: $18,028 · HealthFARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT: $17,500 · Employment
Other$529,274Philanthropy$168,045Human Services$59,252Food & Nutrition$53,300Housing & Shelter$52,600Health$18,028Employment$17,500

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 budgetROCHELLE AREA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $168,045 over 2y, 34% of budgetROCHELLE CHRISTIAN FOOD PANTRY: $57,650 over 3y, 13% of budgetROCHELLE RESCUE MISSION: $46,600 over 5y, 23% of budgetNORTHERN ILLINOIS FOOD BANK: $43,300 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetKITCHEN TABLE INC: $25,400 over 2y, 12% of budgetHUB CITY SENIOR CITIZENS INC: $19,352 over 2y, 4.0% of budgetSINNISSIPPI CENTERS INC: $18,028 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetFARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT: $17,500 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY COORDINATED CHILD CARE INC: $13,900 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHOPE OF OGLE COUNTY: $12,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetLIFESCAPE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetVILLAGE OF PROGRESS INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF OGLE COUNTY: $6,000 over 1y, 6.2% of budgetBELIEVE IN THE CHILDREN INC: $6,000 over 1y, 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.

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 Rock Ri…United Way of Lee Cou…The Etnyre FoundationCommunity Foundation …Northern Illinois Foo…Amazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Rock River ValleyIL17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Rock River Valley · United Way of Lee County Inc · The Etnyre Foundation · Community Foundation of Northern IL · Northern Illinois Food Bank · Amazonsmile Foundation

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 29 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 2020, released 2020. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Rochelle Area’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