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

· Public charity

Secondmuse Foundation

The stated mission of SECONDMUSE FOUNDATION is to foster and develop diverse, participatory innovation communities that incubate solutions to social, economic and environmental issues; including through public education, facilitating the ability of private, commercial actors, entrepreneurs and governments to generate shared visions and…

$774k
Granted FY2023
10
Grants FY2023
6
States reached
$212k
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, FY2021 to 2023.

Philanthropy$324kCommunity Improvement$235kEmployment$200kScience & Tech$172kEducation$125kEnvironment$39kHuman Services$20k
02FY2023 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 10 grants below total $503,500, the rows itemized in this filing. The $773,725 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $270,225 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 · FY2023

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $100k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $404k
$20,000
Median grant
6
States reached
$788k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MIAMI FOUNDATION$211,500
Individual grant recipient$142,000
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO$50,000
CHICAGO INNOVATION FOUNDATION$20,000
OUT IN TECH INC$20,000
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY$15,000
CHICAGO BLEND GROUP$15,000
LATINAS IN TECH$10,000
Individual grant recipient$10,000
P33$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:

Its human-services grants (FY22–23, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LATINAS IN TECH: $10k → 9%LATINAS IN TECH: $10k → 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.

Which US states its grants reach

IL
NY
NJ
CA
DC
OK
GA
FL
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.

35%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$280k · 4 repeat orgs$512k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +9% since the first grant, against -1% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2023, 0 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
5

Total granted

$280k
$270k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+9%
-1%

Still filing today

100%
80%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 17% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $242k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23
Community ImprovementEducationEnvironmentHuman ServicesPhilanthropyOther
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

  • CB
    CHICAGO BLEND GROUP INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $115k · revenue +10% · 37% of their budget
  • DU
    DEPAUL UNIVERSITY
    2× · 2022–2023 · $55k · revenue +9%
  • LI
    LATINAS IN TECH INC
    2× · 2022–2023 · $20k · revenue +3%

Funded once

  • OH
    OPPORTUNITY HUB
    one grant, 2022 · $188k
  • CI
    CIRCULATE INITIATIVE INC
    one grant, 2022 · $39k · revenue -49%
  • IS
    ILLINOIS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COALITIONgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $18k · revenue +834%
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
Technology Policy Institute
International
2
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…

—
3
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…

Community Improvement
4
Ipti Research Org for Tech and Inno Technology and Innovation Inc
—
5
Chicago United

To achieve parity in economic opportunity for people of color by advancing multiracial leadership in corporate governance, expanding the talent pipline for executive-level management, and growing minority businesses.

Philanthropy
6
Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago

Achieving international impact through world-class research and education in fundamental computer science and information technology.

Education
7
Xchange Chicago Inc

To realize a more equitable and inclusive economy by advancing innovative workforce solutions that equip local residents with the skills and resources to access high-growth employment opportunities in tech and other rapidly growing fields…

Employment
8
Miami-Dade Innovation Authority Inc

Miami-dade innovation authority bridges the gap between private innovators and the public sector to fast track innovation that improves quality of life for miamians.

Science & Tech
9
Industrial Council of Nearwest Chicago

Strengthen companies in the kinzie industrial corridor and facilitate economic and community development by providing services and incubator space.

—
10
A Better Chicago

A better chicago is changing how chicago fights poverty by investing in bold ideas that create opportunity for our youth.

Human Services
11
Calinnovates-Org

Promote innovation and investment.

Employment
12
Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute

The chicago psychoanalytic institute transforms the lives of individuals, families and communities, using psychoanalytic knowledge to help them grow and thrive.

Social Science
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is P33; the most unlike its peers is The Chicago Innovation Foundation. 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

12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 15 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)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

OPPORTUNITY HUB: $187,500 · OtherOPPORTUNITY HUBIndividual grant recipient: $142,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTECHUPLIFT: $12,500 · Other+1 more: $10,000 · OtherTHE MIAMI FOUNDATION INC: $323,500 · PhilanthropyTHE MIAMI FOUNDATION INCTHE CHICAGO INNOVATION FOUNDATION: $20,000 · PhilanthropyTHE CHICAGO INNOVATION FOUNDATIONCHICAGO BLEND GROUP INC: $114,999 · Community ImprovementCHICAGO BLEND GROUP INCP33: $90,000 · Community ImprovementP33ILLINOIS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COALITION: $18,000 · Community ImprovementILLINOIS SCIENCE AND TE…WORLD BUSINESS CHICAGO: $12,500 · Community ImprovementDEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $55,000 · EducationDEPAUL UNIVE…University of Chicago: $50,000 · EducationUniversity o…OUT IN TECH INC: $20,000 · EducationOUT IN TECH …CIRCULATE INITIATIVE INC: $39,328 · EnvironmentLATINAS IN TECH INC: $20,000 · Human Services
Other$352,000Philanthropy$343,500Community Improvement$235,499Education$125,000Environment$39,328Human Services$20,000

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 budgetTHE MIAMI FOUNDATION INC: $323,500 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetCHICAGO BLEND GROUP INC: $114,999 over 2y, 37% of budgetP33: $90,000 over 3y, 1.5% of budgetDEPAUL UNIVERSITY: $55,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCIRCULATE INITIATIVE INC: $39,328 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetLATINAS IN TECH INC: $20,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTHE CHICAGO INNOVATION FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 2.2% of budgetOUT IN TECH INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetILLINOIS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COALITION: $18,000 over 1y, 6.4% of budgetWORLD BUSINESS CHICAGO: $12,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTECHUPLIFT: $12,500 over 1y, 1.9% 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.

New Venture FundTides FoundationThe Blackbaud Giving …American Endowment Fo…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
New Venture FundDC12.9× affinity4 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: New Venture Fund · Tides Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · American Endowment Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%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
    4report 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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Secondmuse Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Secondmuse Foundation 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 15 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports no grant expense, so the figures above are from FY2023, the most recent year this funder made grants.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Secondmuse’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