Skip to content
Building Memphis at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Building Memphis

BLDG Memphis drives investments in Memphis neighborhoods thru building capacity in supporting revitalization of Memphis neighborhods thru public policy development & advocacy, organizational capacity building & community education.

$179k
Granted FY2022
7
Grants FY2022
1
States reached
$46k
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, FY2019 to 2022.

Community Improvement$214kHousing & Shelter$78kHealth$31kPublic Safety & Disaster$27kFood & Nutrition$26kHuman Services$25kReligion$22kArts & Culture$13kOther$0
02FY2022 · 7 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$22,833
Median grant
1
States reached
$566k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Alcy Ball CDC$46,167
Greater Whitehaven Economic$25,000
Klondike Smokey$22,833
Frayser CDC$22,833
Kingdom Community Builders$22,833
The Heights$22,833
B Score$16,583
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 (FY19–22, $87k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 19%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 19%CENTER FOR TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES: $31k → 17%CENTER FOR TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES: $12k → 17%B Score: $17k → 17%LEGACY OF LEGENDS CDC: $3k → 17%METHODIST LEBONHEUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH: $25k → 17%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.

30%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$130k · 4 repeat orgs$308k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +153% since the first grant, against -30% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 2 still active in FY2022, 2 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2022 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
11

Total granted

$130k
$174k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+153%
-30%

Still filing today

50%
36%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2022, 26% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $133k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22
Housing & ShelterHuman ServicesArts & CultureCommunity ImprovementFood & NutritionOther
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

  • CF
    CENTER FOR TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES
    2× · 2019–2020 · $43k · revenue -35%
  • KS
    KLONDIKE SMOKEY CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORA
    2× · 2019–2022 · $35k · revenue +153%
  • HC
    HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    2× · 2020–2022 · $29k

Funded once

  • VE
    Vollintine Evergreen Community Assocgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $33k · revenue +119%
  • CC
    CROSSTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    one grant, 2019 · $27k
  • CL
    COMMUNITY LIFT CORP
    one grant, 2019 · $25k · revenue -30%
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
Midtown Development Corporation

To promote the economic development, cultural activities, recreational choices, and historical integrity of Midtown Memphis.

Community Improvement
2
Memphis Center City Development Corporation

Assist private development projects

—
3
Jackson Community Development Corp

Our vision is to seek the wholistic wellbeing of the Jackson neighborhood, where residents are known, valued, and empowered to collaborate for the thriving of its people and place.

Community Improvement
4
True Community Development Corporation

The mission of the TCDC is to function as a development engine committed to providing faith-based leadership, housing, and human service, which will serve as a foundation for revitalization and restoration of under-served and underutilized…

Human Services
5
Village Communities Development Ctr
International
6
Rev Birmingham Inc

Rev birmingham (rev) creates vibrant commercial districts.

Arts & Culture
7
Main Street Corridor Development Corp Dba Midtown Kc Now

Work to suport commercial, mixed use, and residential progress and effective community, economic, and aesthetic development to create and encourage the renewal and vitality of Midtown Kansas City, Missouri.

Community Improvement
8
Mlk Avenue Redevelopment Corp

Community redevelopment

Community Improvement
9
West Side Clt

Create permanently affordable housing with community-centered development in West Charlotte and beyond

Housing & Shelter
10
West End Community Development Corp

Acquire and rehabilitate property on the west side of belleville, illinois to prevent blight.

Community Improvement
11
Charleston Redevelopment Corporation

To facilitate, develop, and advocate for neighborhood revitalization, affordable housing construction, preservation and economic development in Charleston County.

Community Improvement
12
Village Development Corporation

The mission of the Village Development Corporation is to continually revitalize the community by increasing home hownership, supporting business development, and by eliminating blight.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Frayser Community Development Corporation; the most unlike its peers is Whitehaven Economic Development Corporation. 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

11 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. 11 of the 20 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)
10/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $28,833 · OtherHEIGHTS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPOR…CROSSTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $26,750 · OtherCROSSTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP…RESTORATION TIME FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES: $22,850 · OtherRESTORATION TIME FAMILY AND YOUTH SE…KINGDOM COMMUNITY BUILDERS: $22,833 · OtherKINGDOM COMMUNITY BUILDERSGREATER LIFE NETWORK: $20,000 · OtherGREATER LIFE NETWORKFRAYSER COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORS ALLIANCE: $12,000 · OtherFRAYSER COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORS ALLI…+3 more: $7,459 · OtherALCY BALL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $46,167 · Housing & ShelterALCY BALL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO…Vollintine Evergreen Community Assoc: $32,500 · Housing & ShelterVollintine Evergreen Community A…WHITEHAVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $25,000 · Housing & ShelterWHITEHAVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT …FRAYSER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $22,833 · Housing & ShelterFRAYSER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO…CENTER FOR TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES: $43,188 · Human ServicesCENTER FOR TRANSFORMIN…Methodist Le Bonheur Community Outreach: $25,000 · Human ServicesMethodist Le Bonheur C…SOUTH CITY OPPORTUNITY REVITAL: $16,583 · Human ServicesSOUTH CITY OPPORTUNITY…+1 more: $2,500 · Human ServicesKLONDIKE SMOKEY CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORA: $35,333 · Arts & CultureKLONDIKE …COMMUNITY LIFT CORP: $25,000 · Community ImprovementMEMPHIS TILTH: $23,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$140,725Housing & Shelter$126,500Human Services$87,271Arts & Culture$35,333Community Improvement$25,000Food & Nutrition$23,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetALCY BALL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $46,167 over 1y, 5.4% of budgetCENTER FOR TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES: $43,188 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetKLONDIKE SMOKEY CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORA: $35,333 over 2y, 6.2% of budgetVollintine Evergreen Community Assoc: $32,500 over 1y, 21% of budgetCOMMUNITY LIFT CORP: $25,000 over 1y, 3.2% of budgetMethodist Le Bonheur Community Outreach: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetWHITEHAVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $25,000 over 1y, 27% of budgetFRAYSER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $22,833 over 1y, 1.7% of budgetSOUTH CITY OPPORTUNITY REVITAL: $16,583 over 1y, 9.3% 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.

Community Lift CorpCommunity Foundation …The Kresge FoundationUnited Way of the Mid…Christian Community F…Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Lift CorpTN22.1× affinity8 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Lift Corp · Community Foundation of Greater Memphis Inc · The Kresge Foundation · United Way of the Mid South · Christian Community Foundation of Memphis · 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 Building Memphis funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Building Memphis. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%2%8%17%30%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–25%
    typical government reliance, FY20–24
    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 20 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 2022, released 2022. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Building Memphis’ 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