· Public charity
Community Lift Corp
Community LIFT Corporation (Community LIFT) is a non profit community development intermediary whose mission is to revitalize neighborhoods through strategic investment in the areas of human capacity-building and economic and community development.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k1 grant · $8k
- $10k–50k15 grants · $328k
- $50k–250k1 grant · $180k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| River City Capital Investment | $180,000 |
| Score CDC | $42,500 |
| Midsouth Genesis CDC | $25,000 |
| Victoria Village CDC | $25,000 |
| Whitehaven Economic Develop | $25,000 |
| Alcy Ball CDC | $25,000 |
| United Housing | $25,000 |
| Legacy of Legends CDC | $25,000 |
| Uplift Westwood CDC | $20,000 |
| Klondike Smokey City CDC | $20,000 |
| Binghampton Develp Corp | $20,000 |
| Blues Cty ComR Jones | $15,000 |
| Building Memphis | $15,000 |
| MINC | $15,000 |
| Black Coalition for Housing | $15,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $226k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
23 repeat relationships — 10 still active in FY2025, 13 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $155k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). 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
- RCRiver City Capital Investment LLC2× · 2024–2025 · $540k · revenue +130% · 36% of their budget
- PDPROMISE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION7× · 2017–2024 · $263k · revenue +35%
- KSKLONDIKE SMOKEY CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORA7× · 2018–2025 · $205k · revenue +309% · 44% of their budget
Funded once
- RCRiver City Capitalone grant, 2020 · $139k
- RCRALEIGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPgraduatedone grant, 2019 · $38k · revenue +70% · 50% of their budget
- MIMDCDC INCone grant, 2023 · $14k · revenue -3%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
We are a nonprofit that provides affordable rental housing in the South Memphis Area in the City of Memphis.
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…
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.
Provide 16 units of affordable housing to low to moderate income individuals.
The mission of the Village Development Corporation is to continually revitalize the community by increasing home hownership, supporting business development, and by eliminating blight.
To inspire and uplift communities by providing needed resources to improve and and substain communities by assisting in asset building.
Phoenix Revitalization Corporation (PRC) is a non-profit community development corporation dedicated to the revitalization of neighborhoods by facilitating community improvement projects, and the maintenance and creation of low-income and…
CDC focuses on stabilization, housing and job readiness in order to strengthen both the family and the clients we support. CDC provides housing support, fiscal literacy and job readiness help focusing on credit repair, stabilization and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Frayser Community Development Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Melodies of Colors. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 16 years old; the field is 61. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 14% startups (under 5 years old) — 12% of your grantees by number, and just 5% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
26 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 26 of the 43 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds River City Capital Investment LLC ↗
- Who funds PROMISE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds KLONDIKE SMOKEY CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORA ↗
- Who funds OASIS OF HOPE INC ↗
- Who funds VICTORIAN VILLAGE INC CDC ↗
- Who funds ALCY BALL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds UNITED HOUSING INC ↗
- Who funds FRAYSER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Building Memphis ↗
- Who funds SOUTH CITY OPPORTUNITY REVITAL ↗
- Who funds JACOBS LADDER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds The Power Center Community Development Corporation ↗
- Who funds South Memphis Alliance Inc ↗
- Who funds Binghampton Development Corporation ↗
- Who funds RALEIGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗
- Who funds Uplift Westwood Community Development Corporation ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR TRANSFORMING COMMUNITIES ↗
- Who funds NHO MANAGEMENT INC ↗
- Who funds LEGACY OF LEGENDS CDC ↗
- Who funds WHITEHAVEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds MIDSOUTH GENESIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ↗
- Who funds Alliance for Housing Progress ↗
- Who funds MDCDC INC ↗
- Who funds A Better Whitehaven ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Community Foundation of Greater Memphis Inc · Building Memphis · United Way of the Mid South · The Kresge Foundation · Christian Community Foundation of Memphis · Jr Hyde III Family Foundation · The Assisi Foundation of Memphis Inc · Massmutual Foundation Inc · Low Income Investment Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Community Lift Corp funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
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 your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not 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 12–24 months.