Skip to content
Austin Dmo Inc at a glance

· Public charity

Austin Dmo Inc

The Downtown Austin Alliance's mission is to creat, preserve, and enhance the vibe, vitality and value of downtown Austin for everyone.

$371k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$112k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2025.

Arts & Culture$497kCommunity Improvement$496kHousing & Shelter$70kFood & Nutrition$30kRecreation & Sports$28kScience & Tech$25kHuman Services$6k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $246,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $371,132 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $125,132 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k1 grant · $14k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $232k
$60,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$7.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Red River Merchant Association Inc$112,000
Movability$60,000
Caritas of Austin$60,000
Downtown Austin Parks LLC$14,000
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 (FY23–23, $10k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 8%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 8%The Other Ones Foundation: $10k → 10%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.

82%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$908k · 6 repeat orgs$195k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +36% since the first grant, against -4% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$908k
$135k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+36%
-4%

Still filing today

83%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $60k went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’21’22’23’24’25
Arts & CulturePublic BenefitRecreation & SportsHuman ServicesOther
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

  • MI
    MOVABILITY INC
    5× · 2021–2025 · $300k · revenue +36%
  • RR
    Red River Merchants Association Inc
    4× · 2022–2025 · $262k · revenue +54%
  • SF
    SUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER
    3× · 2021–2023 · $30k · revenue +126%

Funded once

  • M
    Mexic-Arte
    one grant, 2024 · $80k
  • RL
    Red Line Parkway Initiative
    one grant, 2022 · $15k · revenue -51%
  • PA
    Preservation Austin
    one grant, 2024 · $15k
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
Good Work Austin

Good Work Austin's mission is to foster healthy careers in the local food and beverage industry through professional development and advocacy for more equitable practices.

Public Benefit
2
Austin Economic Development Corporation

The Austin Economic Development Corporation stewards public and private real estate assets to create inclusive community benefits and equitable economic outcomes for Austin.

Community Improvement
3
Atx Helps

ATX Helps was created to fill gaps in the spectrum of services available to people in Austin who are experiencing homelessness.

Human Services
4
Imagine Austin Coalition Evolve Austin Advocates

Evolve Austin advocates for and champions the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan, crafted by the people of Austin to create a more affordable, mobile, and sustainable city.

—
5
Downtown Austin Development Corporation

To enhance the downtown area of Austin, Texas, and to support and implement the Downtown Vision of the Austin DMO, Inc. d.b.a. Downtown Austin Alliance and implement services and projects benficial to Downtown Austin, including parks…

Environment
6
Austin Creative Alliance

The mission of Austin Creative Alliance is to advance, connect, and celebrate Austin's arts, culture, and creative communities in order to nourish and strengthen the character, quality of life, and economic prosperity of our region.

Arts & Culture
7
Austin-Oita Sister City Committee
Philanthropy
8
Austin Area Research Organization

Aaro, a non-partisan thought leader for central texas, has worked behind the scenes on critical regional issues since 1980. the membership is an intentionally diverse group of central texas leaders drawn from business, industry, education,…

—
9
Austin Outside

Austin Outside champions vibrant and thriving outdoor places for all in Greater Austin, and serves as a hub for our member organizations to empower a healthier Austin for all. We envision a Greater Austin where everyone lives within a ten…

Environment
10
Downtown Dallas Parks Conservancy
Community Improvement
11
Solar Austin

Solar Austin's mission is to accelerate the transition to clean, renewable energy in Central Texas by expanding access to the benefits of solar energy to everyone, thus mitigating climate change, providing jobs, creating healthy…

Environment
12
Austin Pride Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Austin Community Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Red Line Parkway Initiative. 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

9 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. 9 of the 14 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Red River Merchants Association Inc: $262,000 · Arts & CultureRed River Merchants Association IncDOWNTOWN AUSTIN PARKS LLC: $168,000 · Arts & CultureDOWNTOWN AUSTIN PARKS LLCGreater Austin Chamber of Commerce: $122,905 · OtherGreater Austin Chamber of CommerceMexic-Arte: $80,000 · OtherMexic-ArteCARITAS OF AUSTIN: $60,000 · OtherCARITAS OF AUSTINSUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER: $30,000 · OtherSUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTERThe ATXelerator: $25,000 · OtherThe ATXeleratorPreservation Austin: $15,000 · Other+2 more: $14,500 · OtherMOVABILITY INC: $300,000 · Public BenefitMOVABILITY INCAUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 · PhilanthropyRed Line Parkway Initiative: $15,000 · Recreation & SportsTHE OTHER ONES FOUNDATION: $10,000 · Human Services
Arts & Culture$430,000Other$347,405Public Benefit$300,000Philanthropy$50,000Recreation & Sports$15,000Human Services$10,000

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 budgetMOVABILITY INC: $300,000 over 5y, 9.9% of budgetRed River Merchants Association Inc: $262,000 over 4y, 24% of budgetDOWNTOWN AUSTIN PARKS LLC: $168,000 over 3y, 42% of budgetGreater Austin Chamber of Commerce: $122,905 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetCARITAS OF AUSTIN: $60,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetAUSTIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION INC: $50,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSUSTAINABLE FOOD CENTER: $30,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetRed Line Parkway Initiative: $15,000 over 1y, 4.7% of budgetTHE OTHER ONES FOUNDATION: $10,000 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.

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 set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Better Business Bureau
Better Business BureauTX13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Better Business Bureau

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 Austin Dmo Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Austin Dmo Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 14 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 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 Austin Dmo’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