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

· Private foundation

The Osa 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.

$719k
Granted FY2024still arriving
31
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0189% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Education$2.7MEmployment$355kYouth Development$306kPhilanthropy$264kEnvironment$175kHousing & Shelter$105kFood & Nutrition$70kCommunity Improvement$70kOther$0
02FY2024 · 31 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k28 grants · $614k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$24,168
Median grant
4
States reached
$9.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
National Louis University$50,000
Sunnyside Foundation$50,000
Sunnyside Foundation$40,000
LEAP Innovations$30,000
One Million Degrees$30,000
National Louis University$30,000
Educators for Excellence Chicago$25,000
Amphitheater Schools Foundation$25,000
Individual grant recipient$25,000
Chicago Scholars$25,000
Embarc$25,000
Community Investment Corporation$25,000
Scholarships AZ$25,000
Golden Apple Foundation$25,000
The Modern Classrooms Project$25,000
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 (FY17–24, $220k) 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%Springboard Collaborative: $20k → 22%CommunityShare: $20k → 15%LEAP Innovations: $30k → 14%LEAPINNOVATIONS: $30k → 14%LEAP INNOVATIONS: $30k → 14%LEAPINNOVATIONS: $30k → 14%LEAP Innovations: $20k → 14%LEAP Innovations: $20k → 14%LEAP INNOVATIONS: $20k → 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.

90%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$4.5M · 50 repeat orgs$472k to everyone else

50 repeat relationships: 23 still active in FY2024, 27 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

50
20

Total granted

$4.5M
$353k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+31%
+44%

Still filing today

60%
65%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 83% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $119k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationYouth DevelopmentEmploymentHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementEnvironmentOther
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

  • OM
    ONE MILLION DEGREES
    8× · 2017–2024 · $270k · revenue +122%
  • NL
    National Louis University
    7× · 2018–2024 · $265k · revenue +102%
  • EI
    EMBARC INC
    8× · 2017–2024 · $228k · revenue +96%

Funded once

  • CC
    City Colleges of Chicago Foundation
    one grant, 2020 · $50k · revenue -6%
  • E4
    EDUCATORS 4 EXCELLENCE
    one grant, 2017 · $30k
  • O
    ONEGOALgraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $25k · revenue +44%
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
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
2
The Common Application Inc

The common application is a not-for-profit membership organization of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the globe committed to access, equity, and integrity in the college admission process. every year, over 1.5 million students…

Education
3
Citizen Schools Inc

In fiscal year 2025, the agency operated an americorps maker fellowship, placing 7 americorps vista members at 6 different education focused organizations in ca, ma, and ny. americorps members worked on capacity building projects to expand…

Education
4
The University of Chicago Charter School Corporation

To Prepare Students for Success in Four-Year Colleges.

Education
5
Tutoring Chicago

Tutoring chicago delivers the power of education through one-to-one tutoring.

Arts & Culture
6
Coop Careers Inc

Building a movement of diverse, upwardly mobile college grads overcoming underemployment through digital skills and peer connections.

Education
7
Deans for Impact

See Schedule ODeans for Impact supports educator-preparation programs to bring the science of learning into teaching practice; partners with policymakers to ensure pathways into teaching are accessible, practice-based, and…

Education
8
Silicon Schools Fund Inc

The mission of the silicon schools fund is to improve education through supporting the launch of excellent new schools, improving academic instruction in existing schools, and by funding some of the boldest innovations in education…

Education
9
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
10
New Classrooms Innovation Partners Inc

To create and inspire better ways to give every student an educational foundation for lifelong success. we imagine a world where every student attends a school that meets them where they are, adapts to the unique ways they learn, and…

Education
11
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

The Chicago School educates the next generation of change-makers in innovative theory and culturally competent practice to strengthen the integrated health of individuals, organizations, and communities.

Education
12
Junior Achievement of Chicago

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

International
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Kids First Chicago for Education; the most unlike its peers is Radicalxchange Foundation Ltd. 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

48 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. 48 of the 77 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)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
48/48
Grantees still filing
32/48
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Individual grant recipient: $180,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientEDUCATORS FOR EXCELLENCE CHICAGO: $150,000 · OtherEDUCATORS FOR EXCELLENCE CHICAGOIndividual grant recipient: $140,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $125,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientIndividual grant recipient: $110,000 · OtherGOLDEN APPLE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING: $100,000 · OtherSUNNYSIDE FOUNDATION: $100,000 · OtherCHICAGO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $90,000 · OtherYOUTH JOB CENTER INC: $85,000 · OtherNOBLE STREET CHARTER SCHOOLS: $85,000 · OtherTHE MODERN CLASSROOMS PROJECT INC: $110,000 · Other+30 more: $946,800 · Other+30 moreONE MILLION DEGREES: $270,000 · EducationONE MILLION DEGREESNational Louis University: $265,000 · EducationNational Louis UniversityTHE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATION: $185,000 · EducationTHE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATIONCHICAGO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND: $185,000 · EducationCHICAGO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDINTRINSIC SCHOOLS: $170,000 · EducationINTRINSIC SCHOOLSSURGE INSTITUTE: $120,000 · EducationSURGE INSTITUTEHIGH JUMP: $110,000 · EducationHIGH JUMPThe Partnership for College Completion: $105,000 · EducationThe Partnership for College CompletionSCHOLARSHIPSA Z: $70,000 · EducationCity Center for Collaborative Learning: $67,000 · Education+9 more: $208,918 · Education+9 moreEMBARC INC: $227,500 · Youth DevelopmentONEGOAL: $25,000 · Youth DevelopmentBRAVEN INC: $20,000 · Youth DevelopmentBoys to Men Tucson Inc: $20,000 · Youth Development+1 more: $5,000 · Youth DevelopmentLEAP Innovations: $180,000 · Human ServicesSPRINGBOARD COLLABORATIVE: $20,000 · Human ServicesCommunityShare: $20,000 · Human ServicesHealthy Schools Campaign: $140,000 · EnvironmentEVANSTON REBUILDING WAREHOUSE: $35,000 · EnvironmentSKILLS FOR CHICAGO: $70,000 · EmploymentJOBPATH INC: $65,000 · EmploymentINNER-CITY COMPUTER STARS FOUNDATION: $20,000 · EmploymentJANE ADDAMS RESOURCE CORPORATION: $20,000 · EmploymentTeachers Supporting Teachers: $95,000 · Community ImprovementCAMELBACK VENTURES: $35,000 · Community ImprovementCOMMUNITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION: $25,000 · Community Improvement
Other$2,221,800Education$1,755,918Youth Development$297,500Human Services$220,000Environment$175,000Employment$175,000Community Improvement$155,000

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 budgetONE MILLION DEGREES: $270,000 over 8y, 1.0% of budgetNational Louis University: $265,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetEMBARC INC: $227,500 over 8y, 2.1% of budgetTHE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATION: $185,000 over 8y, 0.6% of budgetCHICAGO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND: $185,000 over 8y, 0.9% of budgetLEAP Innovations: $180,000 over 7y, 6.3% of budgetINTRINSIC SCHOOLS: $170,000 over 7y, 0.2% of budgetHealthy Schools Campaign: $140,000 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetSURGE INSTITUTE: $120,000 over 4y, 0.5% of budgetHIGH JUMP: $110,000 over 7y, 0.7% of budgetTHE MODERN CLASSROOMS PROJECT INC: $110,000 over 4y, 1.1% of budgetThe Partnership for College Completion: $105,000 over 7y, 9.0% of budgetGOLDEN APPLE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING: $100,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetTeachers Supporting Teachers: $95,000 over 7y, 13% of budgetYOUTH JOB CENTER INC: $85,000 over 6y, 0.9% of budgetSCHOLARSHIPSA Z: $70,000 over 3y, 7.5% of budgetSKILLS FOR CHICAGO: $70,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetCity Center for Collaborative Learning: $67,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetJOBPATH INC: $65,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetSequoia Springs Trauma Healing Center: $55,000 over 5y, 2.4% of budgetCity Colleges of Chicago Foundation: $50,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $50,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN: $49,250 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetALL CHICAGO MAKING HOMELESSNESS HISTORY: $45,000 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetSweet Water Foundation Inc: $40,000 over 2y, 4.1% of budgetCAMELBACK VENTURES: $35,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetEVANSTON REBUILDING WAREHOUSE: $35,000 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetNOBLE NETWORK OF CHARTER SCHOOLS: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetYEAR UP INC: $30,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetONEGOAL: $25,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetGlobal Glimpse: $25,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetUniversity of Arizona Foundation: $24,168 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetINNER-CITY COMPUTER STARS FOUNDATION: $20,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetBRAVEN INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetBoys to Men Tucson Inc: $20,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetSPRINGBOARD COLLABORATIVE: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSPARK PROGRAM INC: $20,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL ON TEACHER QUALITY INC: $15,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetKIDS FIRST CHICAGO FOR EDUCATION: $13,250 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetBRIGHT PROMISES FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetRADICALXCHANGE FOUNDATION LTD: $10,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetRole Model Movement Inc (NFP): $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetADVANCE ILLINOIS NFP: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% 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 ONE MILLION DEGREES ↗
  • Who funds National Louis University ↗
  • Who funds EMBARC INC ↗
  • Who funds THE CHICAGO SCHOLARS FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND ↗
  • Who funds LEAP Innovations ↗
  • Who funds INTRINSIC SCHOOLS ↗
  • Who funds Healthy Schools Campaign ↗
  • Who funds SURGE INSTITUTE ↗
  • Who funds HIGH JUMP ↗
  • Who funds THE MODERN CLASSROOMS PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds The Partnership for College Completion ↗
  • Who funds GOLDEN APPLE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING ↗
  • Who funds Teachers Supporting Teachers ↗
  • Who funds YOUTH JOB CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds SCHOLARSHIPSA Z ↗
  • Who funds SKILLS FOR CHICAGO ↗
  • Who funds City Center for Collaborative Learning ↗
  • Who funds JOBPATH INC ↗
  • Who funds Sequoia Springs Trauma Healing Center ↗
  • Who funds City Colleges of Chicago Foundation ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds CHICAGO FOUNDATION FOR WOMEN ↗
  • Who funds ALL CHICAGO MAKING HOMELESSNESS HISTORY ↗
  • Who funds Sweet Water Foundation Inc ↗

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.

Finnegan Family Found…Arie and Ida Crown Me…Circle of Service Fou…The Chicago Community…Robert R McCormick Fo…Polk Bros Foundation …Vivo FoundationFulk Family Foundatio…Lloyd a Fry FoundationCme Group FoundationThe Brinson FoundationMayer and Morris Kapl…
Finnegan Family FoundationIL47.4× affinity20 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Finnegan Family Foundation · Arie and Ida Crown Memorial · Circle of Service Foundation · The Chicago Community Trust · Robert R McCormick Foundation · Polk Bros Foundation Inc · Vivo Foundation · Fulk Family Foundation Inc · Lloyd a Fry Foundation · Cme Group Foundation · The Brinson Foundation · Mayer and Morris Kaplan 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 Osa Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Osa 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%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Year Up Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
15report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
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 Osa Foundation?

Find your warmest path to The Osa 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 77 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Osa’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