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

· Public charity

Crescent Collaborative

CRESCENT COLLABORATIVE educates, coordinates, connects and convenes community partners, public and private institutions, non profit organizations, community members and residents to address holistically the economic, health, social, educational and housing impacts of growth and change in the yesler neighborhood and surrounding…

$116k
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$29k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Housing & Shelter$461kCommunity Improvement$186kHuman Services$144kCivil Rights$58k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$29,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$150k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
FRIENDS OF LITTLE SAIGON$29,000
LAVENDER RIGHTS PROJECT$29,000
URBAN LEAGUE OF METROPOLITAN SEATTL$29,000
SCIDPDA$29,000
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 (FY19–23, $144k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%BYRD BARR PLACE: $33k → 9%BYRD BARR PLACE: $33k → 9%BYRD BARR PLACE: $30k → 9%BYRD BARR PLACE: $25k → 9%BYRD BARR PLACE: $23k → 9%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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$936k · 8 repeat orgs$29k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +135% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
1

Total granted

$936k
$29k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+135%
0%

Still filing today

88%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 75% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

50%100%’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesPhilanthropyCrime & LegalOther
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

  • FO
    FRIENDS OF LITTLE SAIGON
    6× · 2020–2025 · $209k · revenue +569%
  • CI
    CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOC
    7× · 2019–2025 · $202k · revenue +610%
  • BB
    BYRD BARR PLACE
    5× · 2019–2023 · $144k · revenue +135%

Funded once

  • UL
    URBAN LEAGUE OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE
    one grant, 2025 · $29k · revenue 0%
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
Chinatown International District Business Improvement Area

Improve the business enviornment, sanitation and public safety in the historical Chinatown-International district of Seattle, WA.

Community Improvement
2
The Urbanist Fund

Support Public Interest Journalism in Washington State

Public Benefit
3
Rainier Beach Cummunity Empowerment Coalition

Rainier Beach Action Coalition is a grassroot, Black-led organization devoted to locally driven development. It promotes quality education, living wage jobs, affordable transportation and housing, and building community capacity in…

Community Improvement
4
The Urbanist

Seattle-based online publication seeking to examine and influence urban policies.

Community Improvement
5
House Our Neighbors

House Our Neighbors envisions a future where all people can afford to live and thrive in vibrant, cohesive, and climate resilient communities. To achieve this, we develop, advocate, and mobilize for policy to realize social housing for the…

—
6
The Alliance for Pioneer Square

Neighborhood revitalization and community economic development within the Pioneer Square district of Seattle

Community Improvement
7
Central Area Collaborative

To ensure the commercial vitality of the Central District

Community Improvement
8
Washington Housing Alliance Action Fund

The Washington Housing Alliance Action Fund elects candidates, educates voters and decision-makers, and amplifies the voices and priorities of people and communities most impacted by housing instability and homelessness.

Housing & Shelter
9
We Heart Seattle

We Heart Seattle is an action-based, boots-on-the-ground movement that organizes trash cleanups in our public spaces and offers resources to those in need. Through our direct civic engagement we lead the way to a more compassionate and…

Community Improvement
10
Tacoma Urban League

To assist African Americans, other ethnic minorities and economically disadvantaged individuals and families in the achievement of social equity and economic independence.

Human Services
11
Black Owned Business Excellence

Help create a more equitable entrepreneurial ecosystem in Washington State.

Community Improvement
12
Standing Against Foreclosure and Evictions

To advocate for the creation of fair housing in Seattle, and empowering communities through mutual aid.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle; the most unlike its peers is First Hill Improvement Association. 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

8 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. 8 of the 9 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)
8/8
Grantees still filing
4/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOC: $202,166 · Housing & ShelterCHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT PRESERV…AFRICATOWN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST: $144,166 · Housing & ShelterAFRICATOWN COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTFRIENDS OF LITTLE SAIGON: $208,666 · Community ImprovementFRIENDS OF LITTLE SAIGONFirst Hill Improvement Association: $35,000 · Community ImprovementFirst Hill Improvement Assoc…BYRD BARR PLACE: $144,166 · Human ServicesBYRD BARR PLACECommunity Roots Housing Foundation: $88,333 · PhilanthropyCommunity …COMMUNITY ROOTS HOUSING: $55,833 · OtherCOMMUNITY…URBAN LEAGUE OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE: $29,000 · OtherURBAN LEA…Lavender Rights Project: $58,000 · Crime & Legal
Housing & Shelter$346,332Community Improvement$243,666Human Services$144,166Philanthropy$88,333Other$84,833Crime & Legal$58,000

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 budgetFRIENDS OF LITTLE SAIGON: $208,666 over 6y, 4.0% of budgetCHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOC: $202,166 over 7y, 9.5% of budgetBYRD BARR PLACE: $144,166 over 5y, 0.4% of budgetAFRICATOWN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST: $144,166 over 5y, 5.2% of budgetCommunity Roots Housing Foundation: $88,333 over 3y, 2.3% of budgetLavender Rights Project: $58,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetFirst Hill Improvement Association: $35,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetURBAN LEAGUE OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE: $29,000 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 tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Seattle FoundationCredit Unions in the …Inatai FoundationCommunity Roots Housi…Raikes FoundationThe Satterberg Founda…Enterprise Community …Gates FoundationLocal Initiatives Sup…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…Network for GoodNational Philanthropi…
Seattle FoundationWA16.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Seattle Foundation · Credit Unions in the State of Washington · Inatai Foundation · Community Roots Housing Foundation · Raikes Foundation · The Satterberg Foundation Inc · Enterprise Community Partners Inc · Gates Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · Network for Good · National Philanthropic Trust

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%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
    5report 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, FY20–24
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Crescent Collaborative?

    Find your warmest path to Crescent Collaborative through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 9 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 Crescent Collaborative’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