Skip to content
The Lsv Asset Management Charitable Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Lsv Asset Management Charitable 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.

$244k
Granted FY2025still arriving
13
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$151k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0197% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2024.

Youth Development$442kHuman Services$116kCommunity Improvement$76kFood & Nutrition$56kInternational$27kEducation$21kHealth$17kArts & Culture$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 13 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $74k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $151k
$5,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$422k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
A Better Chicago$151,000
Greater Chicago Food Depository$19,400
Salvation Army Eastern Territory$15,000
The Salvation Army USA Central Territory$15,000
Invest for Kids$15,000
Role Model Movement Inc$10,000
The Nature Conservancy$5,000
Chicago Scholars$5,000
Compass to Care The Mike & Sandy Ernsdorff Childhood Cancer Foundation$5,000
Hand in Hand USA$1,200
Chicago Hope Academy$1,000
Bookwallah Organization$1,000
Big Brothers-Big Sisters of Metropolitan Chicago$75
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 (FY22–25, $612k) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%INVEST FOR KIDS: $15k → 14%Invest for Kids: $15k → 14%A BETTER CHICAGO: $152k → 14%A BETTER CHICAGO: $152k → 14%A Better Chicago: $151k → 14%A BETTER CHICAGO: $103k → 14%PORT MINISTRIES: $15k → 14%PORT MINISTRIES: $10k → 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.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$972k · 15 repeat orgs$78k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +8% since the first grant, against -5% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
7

Total granted

$972k
$62k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+8%
-5%

Still filing today

87%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 93% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $16k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
EducationHealthHuman ServicesYouth DevelopmentFood & NutritionArts & CultureOther
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

  • AB
    A Better Chicago
    4× · 2022–2025 · $557k · revenue +145%
  • GREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY
    4× · 2022–2025 · $75k · revenue +34%
  • HI
    Hand in Hand USA
    4× · 2022–2025 · $28k · revenue +53%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $45k
  • MY
    Midwest Young Artistsgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $7k · revenue +38%
  • TN
    THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN ILLINOIS
    one grant, 2024 · $6k
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
Chicago Votes

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,…

Civil Rights
3
Thrive Chicago Nfp

Thrive chicago's mission is to prepare chicago's youth for a vibrant future by aligning efforts and outcomes from cradle to career.

Human Services
4
Kipp Chicago Schools

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…

Education
5
The Chicago Innovation Foundation
Philanthropy
6
Midtown-Metro Achievement Centers

Midtown-Metro Achievement Centers, through its Midtown Center for boys and Metro Achievement Center for girls, helps close the achievement gap for Chicago's urban youth ages eight through eighteen.

Education
7
Chicago Heightening Opportunity and Potential for

Providing academic support to children experiencing homelessness in Chicago and providing resources and services to families experiencing homelessness in Chicago.

Education
8
Chicago Run

To promote the health and wellness of Chicago children through innovative, engaging, and sustainable youth running programs.

Philanthropy
9
Chicago United for Equity

Connecting and amplifying the power of individuals to build a just, equitable, and inclusive city.

Civil Rights
10
Chicago Collegiate Inc

To equip all students in grades six through twelve with the academic skills, intellectual habits and character traits to succeed in the college of their choice, strenghten their communities and change the world.

Education
11
Junior Achievement of Chicago

To inspire and prepare young people to succeed in a global economy

International
12
Girls On the Run - Chicago Inc

The organization is a nonprofit after school program that uses the power of running to teach girls, 3rd-8th grade, critical social emotional learning skills.

Recreation & Sports
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Boys and Girls Clubs of Chicago; the most unlike its peers is Students Run Chicago. 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, 2017–2026.

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. 18 of the 25 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)
2
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

A Better Chicago: $557,000 · Human ServicesA Better ChicagoInvest for Kids Inc: $30,000 · Human ServicesThe Port Ministries: $25,000 · Human ServicesTHE SALVATION ARMY: $91,000 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYPITCH IN (DBA WOOD FAMILY FOUNDATION): $75,500 · OtherPITCH IN (DBA WOOD FAMILY…Individual grant recipient: $45,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipien…THE SALVATION ARMY: $15,000 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMY+5 more: $13,525 · Other+5 moreGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $74,900 · Food & NutritionHand in Hand USA: $28,005 · HealthCOMPASS TO CARE: $20,000 · Health+2 more: $2,100 · HealthRole Model Movement Inc (NFP): $45,000 · Youth Development+1 more: $1,000 · Youth DevelopmentEdgebrook School Foundation: $10,000 · EducationTHE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATION: $10,000 · EducationCHICAGO HOPE ACADEMY: $4,000 · EducationBOOKWALLAH ORGANIZATION: $1,000 · Education+1 more: $700 · EducationMidwest Young Artists: $7,000 · Arts & Culture
Human Services$612,000Other$240,025Food & Nutrition$74,900Health$50,105Youth Development$46,000Education$25,700Arts & Culture$7,000

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 Better Chicago: $557,000 over 4y, 2.0% of budgetGREATER CHICAGO FOOD DEPOSITORY: $74,900 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetRole Model Movement Inc (NFP): $45,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetInvest for Kids Inc: $30,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetHand in Hand USA: $28,005 over 4y, 1.8% of budgetThe Port Ministries: $25,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetCOMPASS TO CARE: $20,000 over 4y, 0.7% of budgetEdgebrook School Foundation: $10,000 over 2y, 4.8% of budgetTHE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetMidwest Young Artists: $7,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO HOPE ACADEMY: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetStudents Run Chicago: $1,100 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetBLOOD CANCER UNITED INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF CHICAGO: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTeach for America Inc: $700 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBIG BROTHERS-BIG SISTERS OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO: $175 over 2y, 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.

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.

The Chicago Community…AbbVie FoundationJpmorgan Chase Founda…The Bank of America C…American Online Givin…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Chicago Community TrustIL16× affinity6 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Chicago Community Trust · AbbVie Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · 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 Lsv Asset Management Charitable Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Lsv Asset Management Charitable Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%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 · 0–10%
    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 The Lsv Asset Management Charitable Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Lsv Asset Management Charitable 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 25 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 Lsv Asset Management’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