Skip to content
Capitol Hill Village at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Capitol Hill Village

CAPITOL HILL VILLAGE has a vision of elder adults thriving in vibrant, inclusive, age-friendly communities.

$51k
Granted FY2024still arriving
3
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$17k
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, FY2018 to 2024.

Human Services$181kReligion$17kFood & Nutrition$6k
02FY2024 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $35,086, the rows itemized in this filing. The $51,052 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $15,966 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $29k
$12,586
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.6M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
KINGDOM CARE SENIOR VILLAGE INC$16,500
GREATER BROOKLAND INTERGENERATIONAL VILLAGE$12,586
WATERFRONT VILLAGE$6,000
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 (FY18–24, $158k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%WATERFRONT VILLAGE: $10k → 14%WATERFRONT VILLAGE: $6k → 14%WATERFRONT VILLAGE: $6k → 14%WATERFRONT VILLAGE: $6k → 14%FOGGY BOTTOM WEST END VILLAGE INC: $12k → 14%NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE: $14k → 14%PALISADES VILLAGE: $7k → 14%GREATER BROOKLAND INTERGENERATIONAL VILLAGE: $20k → 14%GREATER BROOKLAND INTERGENERATIONAL VILLAGE: $13k → 14%EAST ROCK CREEK VILLAGE: $7k → 14%NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE: $11k → 14%DUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE: $9k → 14%DUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE: $6k → 14%NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE: $6k → 14%KINGDOM CARE SENIOR VILLAGE INC: $17k → 14%KINGDOM CARE SENIOR VILLAGE INC: $8k → 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.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$177k · 8 repeat orgs$27k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +54% since the first grant, against +13% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
3

Total granted

$177k
$27k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+54%
+13%

Still filing today

88%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’18’19’21’23’24
Human ServicesFood & 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

  • GB
    Greater Brookland Intergenerational Village
    2× · 2023–2024 · $33k · revenue +11%
  • NN
    NORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE
    3× · 2018–2023 · $30k · revenue +66%
  • WV
    WATERFRONT VILLAGE INC
    4× · 2018–2024 · $28k · revenue +23%

Funded once

  • FB
    Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $12k · revenue -7%
  • ER
    EAST ROCK CREEK VILLAGE INC
    one grant, 2018 · $7k · revenue +13%
  • PV
    Palisades Villagegraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $7k · revenue +33%
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
San Francisco Village

San Francisco Village is an innovative membership organization that enables residents to age in their own homes. The Village is dedicated to building community connections for San Francisco residents aged 60 and older, assisted by a robust…

Human Services
2
Washington Area Villages Exchange

The Washington Area Villages Exchange (WAVE) brings together nonprofit villages in the wider Washington DC region to learn and grow by sharing experiences and ideas.

Human Services
3
Arlington Neighborhood Village

To enable older adults to continue living safely, independently, and with an enhanced quality of life in their own homes and communities as they age by providing access to support services and social programs.

Unclassified
4
Glover Park Village Inc

The primary exempt purpose of Glover Park Village, Inc.(GPV): To provide services to our constituents that will engender vibrant aging in the community. GPV provides services, information, opportunities and social services that mitigate…

Human Services
5
Bethesda Metro Area Village

Build community for seniors to age in place; support nationwide village movement.

Human Services
6
Silver Spring Village Inc

To sustain a robust neighbors-helping-neighbors network that supports older adults who wish to live as independently as possible and be fully engaged in their community as they age.

Human Services
7
Villages of San Mateo County

We enable seniors to live in their own homes independently, connect with their community, and age with dignity and grace.

Public Benefit
8
Heritage Village Seniors Inc

This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable purposes. The specific purpose of this…

—
9
Wallingford Community Senior Center

WCSC connects and empowers older adults to live happy, healthy, and engaged lives.

Philanthropy
10
Perimeter North Villages Inc

We are a volunteer and membership organization dedicated to enabling older adults located within our northern atlanta service area to continue living in their own homes safely and comfortably. Our members have access to volunteer support…

—
11
The Shepherd's Center of Northern Virginia

Promote and support independent living for mature adults through volunteer opportunities, transportation assistance, support services, lifelong learning and cultural enrichment opportunities.

Human Services
12
Mount Vernon at Home Inc

To provide a "village" of caring friends, neighbors and volunteers helping seniors age in their homes and communities. Mount Vernon at Home links residents to social and cultural activities while providing access to health and home…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Georgetown Village Inc; the most unlike its peers is Greater Brookland Intergenerational Village. 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

10 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. 10 of the 11 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Greater Brookland Intergenerational Village: $32,969 · Human ServicesGreater Brookland Intergenerational VillageNORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE: $30,000 · Human ServicesNORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGEWATERFRONT VILLAGE INC: $27,928 · Human ServicesWATERFRONT VILLAGE INCKingdom Care Senior Village: $24,875 · Human ServicesKingdom Care Senior VillageDUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE: $15,003 · Human ServicesDUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGEGEORGETOWN VILLAGE INC: $13,600 · Human ServicesGEORGETOWN VILLAGE INCFoggy Bottom West End Village Inc: $12,374 · Human ServicesFoggy Bottom West End Village IncEAST ROCK CREEK VILLAGE INC: $7,252 · Human ServicesPalisades Village: $7,128 · Human ServicesGREATER FELLOWSHIP MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH: $17,100 · OtherGREATER F…CLEVELAND PARK VILLAGE INC: $15,675 · Food & Nutrition
Human Services$171,129Other$17,100Food & Nutrition$15,675

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetGreater Brookland Intergenerational Village: $32,969 over 2y, 15% of budgetNORTHWEST NEIGHBORS VILLAGE: $30,000 over 3y, 5.1% of budgetWATERFRONT VILLAGE INC: $27,928 over 4y, 4.1% of budgetKingdom Care Senior Village: $24,875 over 2y, 5.9% of budgetCLEVELAND PARK VILLAGE INC: $15,675 over 2y, 3.4% of budgetDUPONT CIRCLE VILLAGE: $15,003 over 2y, 3.0% of budgetGEORGETOWN VILLAGE INC: $13,600 over 2y, 2.7% of budgetFoggy Bottom West End Village Inc: $12,374 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetPalisades Village: $7,128 over 1y, 2.8% 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.

Foggy Bottom West End…Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Foggy Bottom West End Village IncDC24.3× affinity9 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Foggy Bottom West End Village Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Capitol Hill Village funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Capitol Hill Village. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    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 11 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Capitol Hill Village’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