Skip to content
The Jeanine M Jasica Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Jeanine M Jasica Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$475k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$475k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

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

Philanthropy$475kReligion$41kHuman Services$40kFood & Nutrition$23kEducation$9kHealth$9kArts & Culture$4kOther$0
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $300
  • $250k+1 grant · $475k
$475,060
Median grant
1
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MORGAN STANLEY GL IMPACT FND TRST$475,060
MORGAN STANLEY GL IMPACT FND TRST$300
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 (FY17–24, $20k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%FAMILY FOCUS: $3k → 14%FAMILY FOCUS: $3k → 14%FAMILY FOCUS: $3k → 14%FAMILY FOCUS: $3k → 14%FAMILY FOCUS: $3k → 14%FAMILY FOCUS: $3k → 14%FAMILY FOCUS: $2k → 14%FAMILY FOCUS: $2k → 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.

20%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$120k · 11 repeat orgs$482k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +31% since the first grant, against +17% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 0 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
5

Total granted

$120k
$7k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+17%

Still filing today

55%
40%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $475k 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
HealthHuman ServicesCrime & LegalHousing & ShelterFood & NutritionOther
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

  • AJ
    A JUST HARVEST
    8× · 2017–2024 · $21k · revenue +246%
  • LC
    LAKE COUNTY CRISIS CENTER
    3× · 2022–2024 · $11k · revenue +31%
  • TC
    The Community Diversity Group
    8× · 2017–2024 · $9k · revenue +8%

Funded once

  • GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY
    one grant, 2020 · $2k · revenue +17%
  • LA
    LESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $2k · revenue +4%
  • PM
    PILLARSCONSTANCE MORRIS HOUSE
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
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
Chicago Children's Advocacy Center

The chicago children's advocacy center unites public, private, and community partners to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of abused children.

Crime & Legal
2
True Chicago
Arts & Culture
3
Illinois Children's Healthcare Foundation
Human Services
4
Family Focus

Family focus invests in strengthening families and children in chicago and ne illinois through innovative community based education and social service programs.

Human Services
5
Chicago Hope Inc

Chicago Hope runs a food pantry twice a week that serves over 100 families. The organization is working toward the furtherance of wrap around services.

Human Services
6
Childrens Advocacy Center of East Central Illinois

To assist children who have been victims of abuse

Crime & Legal
7
Live Free Chicago

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…

—
8
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
9
Children's Home & Aid Society of Ill

Founded in 1883, brightpoint (formerly known as children's home & aid) is a leading statewide organization supporting families so children can thrive.

Human Services
10
Covenant House Chicago
—
11
Infant Welfare Society of Chicago

Infant welfare society of chicago (iws) (d/b/a iws family health) provides quality medical, dental and behavioral health services for the health, physical and mental development of children and their families in the chicagoland community.

—
12
Nourishing Hope

Nourishing hope provides food, mental health support, and social services to help all our neighbors thrive.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Pillars Community Health; the most unlike its peers is The Community Diversity Group. 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

8 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. 8 of the 17 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
7/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

MORGAN STANLEY GL IMPACT FND TRST: $475,360 · OtherMORGAN STANLEY GL IMPACT FND TRSTMISERICORDIA: $40,500 · OtherMISERICORDIA+9 more: $29,100 · Other+9 moreA JUST HARVEST: $21,000 · HealthPILLARS COMMUNITY HEALTH: $3,300 · HealthFAMILY FOCUS LEGACY: $20,000 · Human ServicesThe Community Diversity Group: $8,800 · Crime & LegalGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $2,000 · Food & NutritionLESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER: $2,000 · Housing & Shelter
Other$544,960Health$24,300Human Services$20,000Crime & Legal$8,800Food & Nutrition$2,000Housing & Shelter$2,000

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 budgetA JUST HARVEST: $21,000 over 8y, 0.5% of budgetFAMILY FOCUS LEGACY: $20,000 over 8y, 0.1% of budgetLAKE COUNTY CRISIS CENTER: $10,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetThe Community Diversity Group: $8,800 over 8y, 8.7% of budgetPILLARS COMMUNITY HEALTH: $3,300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ILLINOIS INC: $2,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER: $2,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

  • Who funds A JUST HARVEST ↗
  • Who funds FAMILY FOCUS LEGACY ↗
  • Who funds LAKE COUNTY CRISIS CENTER ↗
  • Who funds The Community Diversity Group ↗
  • Who funds PILLARS COMMUNITY HEALTH ↗
  • Who funds MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION OF ILLINOIS INC ↗
  • Who funds GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY ↗
  • Who funds LESTER AND ROSALIE ANIXTER CENTER ↗

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 Metropo…The Chicago Community…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
United Way of Metropolitan Chicago IncIL13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: United Way of Metropolitan Chicago Inc · The Chicago Community Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 The Jeanine M Jasica Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Jeanine M Jasica Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 17 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-PF 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 Jeanine M Jasica’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