· Public charity
Role Model Movement Inc (NFP)
To inspire youth, empower communities and build a better world one block at a time.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2021–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 16 grants below total $93,500 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $209,730 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $116,230 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 |
|---|---|
| Gifted Hands Hair Creations LLC | $7,500 |
| Life Through A Lens | $6,200 |
| Absolute Athletics | $6,000 |
| 1700 East 85th Block Club | $6,000 |
| 600 Block of Drake Ave Block Club Party | $5,800 |
| The 46th Street Block Club & Community Garden | $5,800 |
| Lotus Neighbors for Action | $5,800 |
| Evans Elite Block Club | $5,600 |
| 7600 S Chappel Ave Block Club | $5,600 |
| 1000-1100 N Monticello Block Club | $5,600 |
| ChiLOVe | $5,600 |
| 6500-6559 S Mozart Community Block Club | $5,600 |
| 77th King Drive Block Club | $5,600 |
| 74th and Indiana Block Club | $5,600 |
| 1000 N Harding | $5,600 |
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 (FY21–22, $16k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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 +394% since the first grant, against +30% for the ones you funded once.
24 repeat relationships — 13 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 81% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $18k 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
- GHGifted Hands Hair Creation LLC4× · 2021–2024 · $36k
- IHIN HIS HANDS RESOURCE CENTER INC2× · 2021–2022 · $26k
- TOTHINK OUTSIDE DA BLOCK INC2× · 2021–2023 · $25k · revenue +394%
Funded once
- TCThe Critical Thinking Child LLCone grant, 2021 · $25k
- PAPullman Artsone grant, 2021 · $25k
- CCHRISTIANAIREone grant, 2021 · $25k
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.
Igniting Minds works to close the educational and nutritional gaps that contribute to generational poverty in Chicago through academic enrichment, workforce development, food insecurity programming, and cultural exchange.
Hoop dreams aims to empower and expose youth from underserved communities to uplifting experiences. We strengthen participants social and interpersonal skills through various enrichment programs
Provide resources and tools to help african american youth from underserved communities aged 14-24 achieve economic sustainability through education, career, and workforce development.
Project LOVE Chicago strives to break the cycle of poverty decrease violent crimes and increase youth academic outcomes. We do this by providing academic athletic and professional resources to vulnerable minority populations throughout the…
Urban Male Network is a nationally recognized organization dedicated to uplifting young men from urban communities through mentorship, education, and service. By redefining the image of the urban male, the network fosters leadership,…
The purpose of the organization is the following: To combat poverty, violence and lack of education in underserved and at risk communities in Illinois.
Free soccer programing to youth and young adults
Youth-led Cultivators
Violence Prevention in Chicago
To provide outreach services and resources
OLAAI's purpose is to provide critical youth development programming that centers racial healing and art/activism in the Lawndale neighborhood of Chicago and to collaborate on community engagement activities.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dream Academy Foundation Inc and the most unlike its peers is Herrendorf Family Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 8 years old; the field is 17. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 26% of your grantees by number, and just 33% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% lost their exemption, against 16% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
34 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. 34 of the 178 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.
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 · Allies for Community Business Inc · Robert R McCormick Foundation · University of Chicago Medical Center · Grow Greater Englewood Inc · Field Foundation of Illinois · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Crossroads Fund Inc · Chicago Foundation for Women · The Joyce Foundation · Chicago Beyond 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 Role Model Movement Inc (NFP) 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.
- The Community Builders Inc — 4% 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.