CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE

The organization over time

Each line starts at 100 in 2017, so what you read is the shape rather than the size: 150 means half as much again as 2017, 50 means half. The number beside each label in the key is where it ended. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.

How it's funded, over time

Each bar is one year's revenue split into where it came from, and every bar is the same height — these are shares, not amounts, so a year that raised twice as much looks the same size. Hover a bar for the split.

Surplus & reserves

Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 2 of the last 9 reported years ran a deficit.

Who funds it, year by year

2018 → 2023: the base broadened from 3 funders to 21 funders, grant income rose $623k → $15M.

19 of 55 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 93% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.

From the IRS filings of CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE’s funders (the co-funder graph). Top 30 of 55 funders by total. Association, not causation. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

How concentrated its funding is

CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE leans on a few funders — its largest provides 77% of grant income and the top three 87%; half comes from just 1 funder.

93% of the income these shares are computed over arrives through pass-through sponsors or from payers whose filings do not say what kind of payment it is. Concentration is still measured over all of it, because the money is real; what it does not support is a claim about how many institutions have chosen to fund CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE.

Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 50% · 2019 61% · 2020 93% · 2021 32% · 2022 13% · 2023 27% — diversifying over time.

“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.

How long its funders stay

35% of CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE's funders are still giving 3 years after their first grant; 49% give in more than one year at all.

Share of funders still giving k years after their first recorded grant, pooled across every acquisition cohort. A funder counts as retained in a year only if it made a grant that year. Measured to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving — a funder cannot be counted as lapsed in a year most filers have not reached.

Where its funders are

92% of CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE's grant income arrives through donor-advised or pass-through sponsors, whose addresses record where the money is held rather than where the donor is. Of the $32M that is directly attributable, 96% of it comes from funders outside Illinois, across 11 states.

Funder states come from each funder’s own filing. $400M arriving through sponsors registered in 11 states is excluded from the map and the split above: a sponsor holds money on a donor’s behalf, so its registered address would place those dollars somewhere no donor need ever have been. Trends are read to FY2023, the last fiscal year that has finished arriving. FY2024–FY2026 are still being filed and are shown unshaded; they do not move any figure on this page.