Loading…
Loading…
Illinois · Nonprofit
HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION (Illinois) is funded by 2 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $1,350,000 in grants to it, the largest being Lumina Foundation for Education Inc ($850,000). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION is better cushioned than half of the 2,198 education nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 2,198 education nonprofits $10M–$100M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
4% of HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION’s revenue is contributions — more earned-revenue than three-quarters of its peers (26% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 4 of the last 7 reported years ran a deficit.
Grant income rose $100k → $500k on a roughly flat funder count — a concentrated base.
From the IRS filings of HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION leans on a few funders — its largest provides 63% of grant income and the top three 100%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 100% · 2019 100% · 2023 100% · 2024 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION draws 100% of its grant income from funders outside Illinois — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 2 states in all.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 2 funders put you under-funded among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $491k on record — $94k federal, $398k state.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
78% of spending goes to programs.
96%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), and the filings of 2funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing