· Private foundation
Square One Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k3 grants · $11k
- $10k–50k16 grants · $513k
- $50k–250k55 grants · $4.3M
- $250k+3 grants · $2.4M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Jewish United Fund (JUF) | $1,500,000 |
| University of Chicago | $590,000 |
| William J Brennan Jr Center for Justice Inc | $300,000 |
| National Louis University | $207,500 |
| THE ELECTION CENTER | $200,000 |
| City Bureau | $137,500 |
| Palenque LSNA | $135,000 |
| Civic News Company | $127,500 |
| Chicago United for Equity | $100,000 |
| Wisconsin Conservation VOICES | $100,000 |
| KidsFirst Chicago | $100,000 |
| Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights | $95,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $92,500 |
| Block Club Chicago | $85,000 |
| Mikva Challenge Grant Foundation Inc | $85,000 |
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 (FY22–24, $413k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +31% since the first grant, against +22% for the ones you funded once.
72 repeat relationships — 50 still active in FY2024, 22 since wound down; 22 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, 62% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $2.6M 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
University of Chicago6× · 2018–2024 · $3.8M · revenue +52%
WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC7× · 2018–2024 · $905k · revenue +211%- NLNational Louis University4× · 2021–2024 · $594k · revenue +31%
Funded once
- UOUniversity of Chicago Odyssey Challengeone grant, 2023 · $500k
- CNCivic News Company (Chalkbeat)one grant, 2023 · $103k
- SSSouth Shore Hospital Corporationone grant, 2020 · $100k · revenue +9%
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.
Chicago Votes is a non-partisan, non-profit organization building a more inclusive democracy by putting power in the hands of young Chicagoans. We're engaging and developing a new generation of leaders by opening the doors of government,…
The chicago public education fund (the fund) is a nonprofit organization that improves public schools in chicago by investing in the talented educators who lead them.
A better chicago is changing how chicago fights poverty by investing in bold ideas that create opportunity for our youth.
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.
The chicago psychoanalytic institute transforms the lives of individuals, families and communities, using psychoanalytic knowledge to help them grow and thrive.
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…
Live Free Illinois is a statewide organization partnering with over 120 congregations and directly impacted individuals to build safer more equitable communities across Illinois. Operating at the intersection of criminal justice reform and…
The chicago committee seeks racial and ethnic diversity in the legal profession by collaborating with its law firm and corporate membership to: drive sustainable institutional change at law firms and corporate legal departments; provide…
The team at kipp chicago schools is guided by a simple, yet powerful mission: to create a network of excellent schools in chicago that teach our students the character and academic skills necessary to succeed in college and beyond, and to…
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…
PILI engages, inspires and empowers those advancing equal access to justice.
Advancing Nonprofits is committed to strengthening the organizational health and support long-term development of small nonprofits on Chicagos west and south sides while prioritizing Black- and Latine-led community organizations.…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kids First Chicago for Education and the most unlike its peers is Lugenia Burns Hope Center. 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 29 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 20% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% 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.
103 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.
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 2017–2026, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 103 of the 153 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 University of Chicago ↗
- Who funds JEWISH FEDERATION OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds WILLIAM J BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE INC ↗
- Who funds National Louis University ↗
- Who funds FRAMEWORKS INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds UNITING VOICES ↗
- Who funds MIKVA CHALLENGE GRANT FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds KIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION ↗
- Who funds Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc ↗
- Who funds REFORM FOR ILLINOIS ↗
- Who funds ADVANCE ILLINOIS NFP ↗
- Who funds Chicago United for Equity ↗
- Who funds CITY BUREAU NFP ↗
- Who funds THE ELECTION CENTER ↗
- Who funds BRAVEN INC ↗
- Who funds BLACKROOTS ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Illinois Institute of Technology ↗
- Who funds LATINO POLICY FORUM ↗
- Who funds BLOCK CLUB CHICAGO NFP ↗
- Who funds EQUITY AND TRANSFORMATION ↗
- Who funds CHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN ↗
- Who funds The Partnership for College Completion ↗
- Who funds CROSSROADS FUND INC ↗
- Who funds Logan Square Neighborhood Association ↗
- Who funds COMMON CAUSE EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITIES UNITED ↗
- Who funds WISCONSIN CONSERVATION VOTERS INC ↗
- Who funds CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER ↗
- Who funds SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE - CHICAGO ↗
- Who funds Injustice Watch NFP ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND FAMILY ISSUES ↗
- Who funds Enlace Chicago ↗
- Who funds Accelerate Institute ↗
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: Polk Bros Foundation Inc · Field Foundation of Illinois · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Lloyd a Fry Foundation · The Joyce Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · Circle of Service Foundation · Grand Victoria Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Woods Fund of Chicago
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 Square One Foundation 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.
- City Year Inc — 11% 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 Square One Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Square One 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.