Skip to content
The Commercial Club Foundation at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Commercial Club Foundation

See schedule othe foundation was organized to fund activities of the civic committee & its affiliated orgs in their missions to make chicago a better place for everyone to live, work, & do business.

$15M
Granted FY2025still arriving
7
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$7.4M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Community Improvement$31MPublic Benefit$15MEducation$4.6MPhilanthropy$3.9MYouth Development$75kArts & Culture$50kScience & Tech$25kFood & Nutrition$25k
02FY2025 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $200k
  • $250k+5 grants · $15M
$1,860,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$44M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO$7,433,903
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CRIME LABS$2,535,050
ROBERT R MCCORMICK FOUNDATION$2,000,000
CHICAGO COMMUNITY TRUST$1,860,000
CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE$1,243,109
P33$200,000
CIVIC COMMITTEE ACTION$8,695
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%THE CIVIC FEDERATION: $25k → 14%THE CIVIC FEDERATION: $25k → 14%THE CIVIC FEDERATION: $25k → 14%THE CIVIC FEDERATION: $25k → 14%THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $7.4M → 14%THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $4.9M → 14%THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $3.1M → 14%THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $3.0M → 14%THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $2.5M → 14%THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $2.4M → 14%THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $2.3M → 14%The Commercial Club of chicago: $2.2M → 14%The Commercial Club of chicago: $1.7M → 14%CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $1.6M → 14%CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $1.5M → 14%CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $1.5M → 14%CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $1.5M → 14%CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $1.4M → 14%Civic Consulting Alliance: $1.4M → 14%CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $1.4M → 14%Civic Consulting Alliance: $1.4M → 14%CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $1.2M → 14%Illinois is Broke: $1.0M → 14%New Schools for Chicago: $643k → 14%P33: $400k → 14%P33: $300k → 14%P33: $300k → 14%P33: $300k → 14%KIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $250k → 14%KIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $224k → 14%KIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $197k → 14%Illinois is Broke: $188k → 14%KIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $182k → 14%KIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $169k → 14%New Schools for Chicago: $161k → 14%KIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $157k → 14%ILLINOIS IS BROKE: $79k → 14%CHICAGO SHAKESPEARE THEATER: $25k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CRIME LABS: $2.5M → 14%Univ of Chicago Harrris School of Publ P: $60k → 14%P33: $200k → 14%P33: $200k → 14%STAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP CTRINC: $75k → 14%ROBERT R MCCORMICK FOUNDATION: $2.0M → 14%CHICAGO COMMUNITY TRUST: $1.9M → 14%The Civic Federation: $25k → 14%CHICAGO SINFONIETTA: $25k → 14%The Civic Federation: $25k → 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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$50M · 9 repeat orgs$195k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
7

Total granted

$50M
$195k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
+22%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationArts & CulturePublic BenefitCommunity ImprovementPhilanthropyYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • TC
    THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO
    9× · 2017–2025 · $29M · revenue +239% · 85% of their budget
  • CC
    CIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $13M · revenue +99% · 55% of their budget
  • University of Chicago
    2× · 2020–2025 · $2.6M · revenue +52%

Funded once

  • STAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP CENTER INC
    one grant, 2021 · $75k · revenue -7%
  • SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
    one grant, 2020 · $25k · revenue +22%
  • GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORYgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $25k · revenue +34%
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
True Chicago
Arts & Culture
2
The Chicago Innovation Foundation
Philanthropy
3
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…

—
4
Chicago Municipal Employee's Credit Union

To give members the ability to control their financial destiny by providing members with the means to satisfy their needs for financial services in a comfortable family-like environment. in doing so, the credit union strives to maintain…

—
5
The Civic Federation

The civic federation provides objective research and recommendations to improve government efficiency, transparency and accountability and to educate policymakers and the public.

—
6
Chicago Wind Symphony
Arts & Culture
7
Students Run Chicago
Health
8
Chicago's Environmental Fund
—
9
Illinois Chapter of National Societ Arts and Letters Inc
—
10
Chicago Public Education Fund

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.

Education
11
Illinois Chamber of Commerce

The unifying leader of policies that support growth in illinois' dynamic and diverse economy. this is done through various means, one of which is aggressively advocate the interest of business. its vision is a vibrant and prosperous future…

—
12
The Richard H Driehaus Foundation
Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Stand for Children Leadership Center Inc; the most unlike its peers is Illinois Fiscal Policy Council. 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

18 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

5
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
11/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $29,451,224 · OtherTHE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGOCIVIC COMMITTEE ACTION: $1,346,833 · Other+1 more: $170,150 · OtherCIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $13,035,799 · EducationCIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCEUniversity of Chicago: $2,595,050 · EducationUniversity of ChicagoKIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $1,981,733 · EducationKIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATIONROBERT R MCCORMICK FOUNDATION: $2,000,000 · PhilanthropyThe Chicago Community Trust: $1,860,000 · Philanthropy+1 more: $45,000 · PhilanthropyP33: $1,700,000 · Community Improvement+1 more: $10,000 · Community ImprovementSTAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP CENTER INC: $75,000 · Youth DevelopmentSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $25,000 · Arts & CultureCHICAGO SINFONIETTA INC: $25,000 · Arts & CultureCHICAGO SHAKESPEARE THEATER: $25,000 · Arts & CultureILLINOIS FISCAL POLICY COUNCIL: $50,000 · Public BenefitLEADERSHIP GREATER CHICAGO: $10,000 · Public BenefitGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $25,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$30,968,207Education$17,612,582Philanthropy$3,905,000Community Improvement$1,710,000Youth Development$75,000Arts & Culture$75,000Public Benefit$60,000Food & Nutrition$25,000

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 budgetTHE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF CHICAGO: $29,451,224 over 9y, 85% of budgetCIVIC CONSULTING ALLIANCE: $13,035,799 over 9y, 55% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $2,595,050 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetKIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $1,981,733 over 8y, 35% of budgetThe Chicago Community Trust: $1,860,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetP33: $1,700,000 over 6y, 8.7% of budgetCIVIC COMMITTEE ACTION: $1,346,833 over 9y, 100% of budgetTHE CIVIC FEDERATION: $170,150 over 8y, 1.6% of budgetSTAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP CENTER INC: $75,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetILLINOIS FISCAL POLICY COUNCIL: $50,000 over 5y, 71% of budgetUNITED WAY OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO INC: $45,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO SINFONIETTA INC: $25,000 over 1y, 2.0% of budgetCHICAGO SHAKESPEARE THEATER: $25,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetLEADERSHIP GREATER CHICAGO: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTaxpayers' Federation of Illinois: $10,000 over 1y, 1.8% 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.

Arie and Ida Crown Me…The Chicago Community…Lloyd a Fry FoundationRobert R McCormick Fo…Polk Bros Foundation …Circle of Service Fou…John D and Catherine …United Way of Metropo…Gs Donor Advised Phil…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…The Blackbaud Giving …Vanguard Charitable E…
Arie and Ida Crown MemorialIL17.6× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · The Chicago Community Trust · Lloyd a Fry Foundation · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · Circle of Service Foundation · John D and Catherine T Macarthur Foundation · United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%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
    1get no government money at all
    3report 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 18 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Commercial Club’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