Skip to content

· Private foundation

City View Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$150k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it funds
0188% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2022 to 2025.

International$230kHuman Services$126kEnvironment$42kAnimals$35kYouth Development$10kPublic Safety & Disaster$10kPublic Benefit$10kEducation$8kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k6 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $30k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $100k
$5,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
URBAN MINISTRY$50,000
SHANTA FOUNDATION$50,000
GENERAL COUNCIL ON FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION UMC$10,000
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY$10,000
WOODLAND PARK ZOO SEATTLE$10,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
BIRMINGHAM ZOO$5,000
COMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK$5,000
Individual grant recipient$2,000
MOBILE BAYKEEPER$2,000
NORTH STAR SOCCER MINISTIRES$1,000
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 (FY22–25, $126k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%URBAN MINISTRY: $50k → 16%URBAN MINISTRY: $50k → 16%URBAN MINISTRY: $1k → 16%COMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK: $10k → 16%COMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK: $5k → 16%COMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK: $5k → 16%COMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK: $5k → 16%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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 13% of City View Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

City View Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 16% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

89%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$406k · 9 repeat orgs$49k to everyone else

9 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

9
7

Total granted

$406k
$36k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-5%
+61%

Still filing today

56%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 91% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $13k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementYouth DevelopmentHousing & ShelterAnimalsOther
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

  • SF
    Shanta Foundation Inc
    4× · 2022–2025 · $200k · revenue +35%
  • UM
    Urban Ministry Inc
    3× · 2023–2025 · $101k · revenue -33%
  • UG
    UMCOR GLOBAL MINISTRIES OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
    3× · 2022–2024 · $30k

Funded once

  • OO
    OUTDOOR OUTREACHgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $10k · revenue +61%
  • SC
    SHNOHOMISH CO VOLUNTEER SAR UNIT INC
    one grant, 2023 · $10k
  • HC
    HOMEWOOD CITY SCHOOLS FOUNDATION INC
    one grant, 2022 · $5k · revenue -2%
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
Alabama Forest Land Trust Inc

The Organization focuses on providing services via conservation easements, administration of various grants, educational outreach and planning.

—
2
Alabama Rivers Alliance Inc

Alabama Rivers Alliance is a statewide network of groups working to protect and restore all of Alabama's water resources through building partnerships, empowering citizens, and advocating for sound water policy and its enforcement.

Environment
3
Hometown Organizing Project

Promoting inclusive and sustainable rural communities in Alabama through grassroots organizing, leadership development, and civic engagement.

Community Improvement
4
Habitat for Humanity International Inc

Battle creek area habitat for humanity's mission is to provide sustainable homeownership to committed, qualified families in calhoun county.

—
5
Fishing Cat Conservation Alliance Inc

The Fishing Cat Conservation Alliance supports the conservation of fishing cats and their natural habitats within their geographical range in South and South East Asia by working with local partners around the world to identify and…

Animals
6
Rogue Climate

Rogue Climate's mission is to empower Southern Oregon communities most impacted by climate change including low-income, rural, youth, seniors & communities of color, to win climate justice by organizing for clean energy, sustainable jobs &…

Education
7
The Land Trust for Tennessee Inc

To conserve the unique character of tennessee's natural and historic landscapes and sites for future generations.

Environment
8
Outdoor Equity Alliance

To create equitable access to nature in all communities and inspire a diverse new generation of environmental leaders.

Food & Nutrition
9
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
10
Global Forest Generation

Global Forest Generation restores and protects forest ecosystems in partnership with grassroots leaders and local communities across vast landscapes which play a critical role in preserving water, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon,…

Environment
11
Tennessee Clean Water Network

To identify, prevent, and remedy water pollution statewide through a network of allies and resources.

—
12
Howard Ecoworks Inc

To empower communities and diverse workforces to conserve and restore our natural systems for future generations

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Appalachia Service Project Inc; the most unlike its peers is The Nature Conservancy. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the 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 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Shanta Foundation Inc: $200,000 · Community ImprovementShanta Foundation IncTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $40,000 · OtherTHE NATURE CONSERVANCYUMCOR GLOBAL MINISTRIES OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $30,000 · OtherUMCOR GLOBAL MINISTRIES OF TH…WOODLAND PARK ZOO SEATTLE: $20,000 · OtherWOODLAND PARK ZOO SEATTLEGENERAL COUNCIL ON FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION UMC: $10,000 · OtherGENERAL COUNCIL ON FINANCE & …SHNOHOMISH CO VOLUNTEER SAR UNIT INC: $10,000 · OtherSHNOHOMISH CO VOLUNTEER SAR U…Individual grant recipient: $6,000 · OtherTRINITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $5,000 · Other+4 more: $8,500 · Other+4 moreUrban Ministry Inc: $101,000 · Human ServicesUrban Ministry IncCOMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesCOMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK INCBirmingham Zoo Inc: $15,000 · AnimalsOUTDOOR OUTREACH: $10,000 · Youth DevelopmentHOMEWOOD CITY SCHOOLS FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 · EducationLINLY HEFLIN UNIT INC: $2,000 · EducationAPPALACHIA SERVICE PROJECT INC: $4,500 · Housing & ShelterMobile Baykeeper Inc: $2,000 · Environment
Community Improvement$200,000Other$129,500Human Services$126,000Animals$15,000Youth Development$10,000Education$7,000Housing & Shelter$4,500Environment$2,000

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 budgetShanta Foundation Inc: $200,000 over 4y, 7.3% of budgetUrban Ministry Inc: $101,000 over 3y, 5.1% of budgetTHE NATURE CONSERVANCY: $40,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCOMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK INC: $25,000 over 4y, 1.7% of budgetBirmingham Zoo Inc: $15,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetOUTDOOR OUTREACH: $10,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHOMEWOOD CITY SCHOOLS FOUNDATION INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.2% of budgetAPPALACHIA SERVICE PROJECT INC: $4,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetLINLY HEFLIN UNIT INC: $2,000 over 1y, 0.3% 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.

  • Who funds Shanta Foundation Inc ↗
  • Who funds Urban Ministry Inc ↗
  • Who funds THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds COMMUNITY FURNITURE BANK INC ↗
  • Who funds Birmingham Zoo Inc ↗
  • Who funds OUTDOOR OUTREACH ↗
  • Who funds HOMEWOOD CITY SCHOOLS FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds APPALACHIA SERVICE PROJECT INC ↗
  • Who funds LINLY HEFLIN UNIT INC ↗
  • Who funds Mobile Baykeeper Inc ↗

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.

The Daniel Foundation of AlabamaAL13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Daniel Foundation of Alabama · The Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham · Alabama Power Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 City View Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from City View Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%15%30%45%60%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–60%
    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 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-PF 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 City View’s filings →

    More from the funding graph