Skip to content
Detroit Parks Coalition at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Detroit Parks Coalition

The DETROIT PARKS COALITION ("the coalition") is an alliance of community members and parks leaders working to support healthy, equitable, and vibrant parks in detroit.

$647k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$500k
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, FY2023 to 2024.

Recreation & Sports$661kCommunity Improvement$121kArts & Culture$20kHousing & Shelter$20k
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k7 grants · $137k
  • $250k+1 grant · $500k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$1.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CITY OF DETROIT$500,000
FRIENDS OF ROUGE PARK$27,250
BAILEY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOP$20,000
PEOPLE FOR PALMER PARK$20,000
POPPS PACKING$20,000
360 DETROIT INC$20,000
SIDEWALK DETROIT$15,000
CANFIELD CONSORTIUM$15,000
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 (FY24–24, $15k) land where the poverty rate runs at 21%, 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%CANFIELD CONSORTIUM: $15k → 21%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.

77%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$629k · 3 repeat orgs$193k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +0% since the first grant, against -16% for those funded once.

3 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
4

Total granted

$629k
$118k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+0%
-16%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 88% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $75k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
Recreation & SportsCommunity ImprovementEducationArts & CultureHuman ServicesOther
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 Rouge Park
    2× · 2023–2024 · $547k · revenue +625%
  • PF
    PEOPLE FOR PALMER PARK
    2× · 2023–2024 · $44k · revenue -45%
  • SD
    SIDEWALK DETROIT
    2× · 2023–2024 · $39k · revenue +0%

Funded once

  • D3
    DETROIT 300 CONSERVANCY
    one grant, 2023 · $47k · revenue +10%
  • BI
    BELLE ISLE CONSERVANCY
    one grant, 2023 · $24k · revenue -25%
  • MIDTOWN DETROIT INC
    one grant, 2023 · $24k · revenue -38%
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
Downtown Dallas Parks Conservancy
Community Improvement
2
Dte Beacon Park Foundation
Recreation & Sports
3
Play for a Cause Detroit

Maintain public parks

Environment
4
About Face Detroit
—
5
Detroit Parks Coalition

The detroit parks coalition ("the coalition") is an alliance of community members and parks leaders working to support healthy, equitable, and vibrant parks in detroit. the coalition develops and facilitates city-wide parks programming,…

Recreation & Sports
6
Mack Alive

The nbsp;mission nbsp;of nbsp;mack nbsp;alive nbsp;is nbsp;to nbsp;enhance nbsp;the nbsp;growth nbsp;and nbsp;development nbsp;on nbsp;the nbsp;eastside nbsp;of nbsp;detroit

Health
7
Battery Park City Parks Conservancy Corporation

The battery park city parks conservancy's mission is to manage, maintain, operate, repair, preserve and program activities to a world class standard for the residential parks, open space, and other public structures located on the 92 acre…

Recreation & Sports
8
Rescue Mi Nature Now Inc

Rescue MI Nature Now, Inc. is a Michigan Nonprofit Organization committed to cultivating green zones within the communities and empowering neighborhoods through nature-centric educational programs. Through hands-on initiatives, we empower…

Environment
9
Flint Public Art Project

Non Profit Art Organization

Community Improvement
10
Chandler Park Conservancy

Chandler park conservancy is dedicated to protecting,restoring and enhancing the natural environment, recreation facilities and unique character of chandler park in detroit.

Environment
11
Summer in the City

Summer in the City strives to improve and expand community service in Metro Detroit. By bringing a diverse group of young people together to invest their energy in Detroit, Summer in the City programs address the immediate needs of city…

Philanthropy
12
The Michigan Glass Project
Public Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Sidewalk Detroit; the most unlike its peers is Canfield Consortium. 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, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
3/11
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Friends of Rouge Park: $546,558 · EducationFriends of Rouge ParkDETROIT 300 CONSERVANCY: $47,025 · Recreation & SportsDETROIT 300 CONSER…PEOPLE FOR PALMER PARK: $43,512 · Recreation & SportsPEOPLE FOR PALMER …CLARK PARK COALITION: $23,512 · Recreation & SportsCLARK PARK COALITI…Bailey Park Project: $20,000 · Recreation & SportsBailey Park Projec…BELLE ISLE CONSERVANCY: $23,512 · Community ImprovementBELLE ISL…MIDTOWN DETROIT INC: $23,512 · Community ImprovementMIDTOWN D…360 DETROIT INC: $20,000 · Community Improvement360 DETRO…SIDEWALK DETROIT: $38,512 · OtherPOPPS PACKING: $20,000 · Arts & CultureCANFIELD CONSORTIUM: $15,000 · Human Services
Education$546,558Recreation & Sports$134,049Community Improvement$67,024Other$38,512Arts & Culture$20,000Human Services$15,000

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 budgetFriends of Rouge Park: $546,558 over 2y, 22% of budgetDETROIT 300 CONSERVANCY: $47,025 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetPEOPLE FOR PALMER PARK: $43,512 over 2y, 10% of budgetSIDEWALK DETROIT: $38,512 over 2y, 3.7% of budgetBELLE ISLE CONSERVANCY: $23,512 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetMIDTOWN DETROIT INC: $23,512 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCLARK PARK COALITION: $23,512 over 1y, 5.8% of budgetBailey Park Project: $20,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budget360 DETROIT INC: $20,000 over 1y, 4.5% of budgetCANFIELD CONSORTIUM: $15,000 over 1y, 7.5% 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 Foundation …The Kresge FoundationDTE Energy FoundationThe Ford FoundationDetroit Future CityDetroit Regional Cham…Hudson-Webber Foundat…Wayne-Metropolitan Co…Charities Aid Foundat…Amazonsmile Foundation
Community Foundation for Southeast MichiganMI23.4× affinity9 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan · The Kresge Foundation · DTE Energy Foundation · The Ford Foundation · Detroit Future City · Detroit Regional Chamber Foundation Inc · Hudson-Webber Foundation · Wayne-Metropolitan Community Action Agency Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 Detroit Parks Coalition funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Detroit Parks Coalition. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 Detroit Parks Coalition’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