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

· Public charity

Elevate USA

Building long-term, life-changing relationships with urban youth, equipping them to thrive and contribute to their community.

$499k
Granted FY2024still arriving
16
Grants FY2024still arriving
12
States reached
$50k
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, FY2022 to 2024.

Youth Development$1.5M
02FY2024 · 16 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k12 grants · $299k
  • $50k–250k4 grants · $200k
$25,000
Median grant
12
States reached
$1.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ELEVATE WEST ALABAMA$50,000
ELEVATE LOUISVILLE$50,000
ELEVATE NAVAJO$50,000
ELEVATE TAMPA BAY$50,000
ELEVATE BRIDGEPORT$39,453
ELEVATE AUGUSTA$25,000
ELEVATE JACKSONVILLE$25,000
ELEVATE GREATER ATLANTA INC$25,000
ELEVATE ORLANDO$25,000
ELEVATE INDIANAPOLIS$25,000
ELEVATE SAVANNAH$25,000
ELEVATE METRO KC$25,000
COLORADO UPLIFT$25,000
ELEVATE NEW ENGLAND$25,000
ELEVATE NEW YORK$19,949
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY22–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 77% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%ELEVATE NAVAJO: $50k → 28%ELEVATE NEW ENGLAND: $25k → 8%ELEVATE NEW YORK: $30k → 17%ELEVATE DALLAS: $50k → 14%ELEVATE TAMPA BAY: $50k → 13%ELEVATE BIRMINGHAM: $44k → 16%ELEVATE WEST ALABAMA: $50k → 17%ELEVATE METRO KC: $25k → 5%ELEVATE BRIDGEPORT: $50k → 9%ELEVATE AUGUSTA: $25k → 7%ELEVATE GREATER ATLANTA INC: $25k → 13%ELEVATE SAVANNAH: $25k → 16%COLORADO UPLIFT: $25k → 12%ELEVATE INDIANAPOLIS: $25k → 16%ELEVATE NEW JERSEY: $36k → 12%ELEVATE LOUISVILLE: $50k → 15%ELEVATE NAVAJO: $50k → 28%ELEVATE NEW ENGLAND: $25k → 8%ELEVATE NEW YORK: $25k → 17%ELEVATE DALLAS: $25k → 14%ELEVATE TAMPA BAY: $50k → 13%ELEVATE BIRMINGHAM: $31k → 16%ELEVATE WEST ALABAMA: $50k → 17%ELEVATE METRO KC: $25k → 5%ELEVATE BRIDGEPORT: $41k → 9%ELEVATE GREATER ATLANTA INC: $25k → 13%ELEVATE SAVANNAH: $25k → 16%COLORADO UPLIFT: $25k → 12%ELEVATE INDIANAPOLIS: $25k → 16%ELEVATE NEW JERSEY: $25k → 12%ELEVATE LOUISVILLE: $50k → 15%ELEVATE NAVAJO: $50k → 28%ELEVATE NEW ENGLAND: $25k → 8%ELEVATE NEW YORK: $20k → 17%ELEVATE METRO KC: $25k → 5%ELEVATE BRIDGEPORT: $39k → 9%ELEVATE GREATER ATLANTA INC: $25k → 13%COLORADO UPLIFT: $25k → 12%ELEVATE NEW JERSEY: $14k → 12%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NY
MA
IN
NJ
CT
CO
KY
AZ
KS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 17 repeat orgs$25k to everyone else

17 repeat relationships: 15 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
1

Total granted

$1.4M
$25k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+47%
+149%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $25k went to new ones.

50%100%’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’22’23’24
EducationYouth DevelopmentOther
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

  • EB
    ELEVATE BRIDGEPORT INC
    3× · 2022–2024 · $131k · revenue +149%
  • EW
    ELEVATE WEST ALABAMA
    2× · 2023–2024 · $100k · revenue +99% · 45% of their budget
  • ET
    ELEVATE TAMPA BAY INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $100k · revenue +79%

Funded once

  • EA
    ELEVATE AUGUSTA INC
    one grant, 2024 · $25k
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
Elevations Youth Development Outreach Inc

Embrace, educate and encourage our youth

Youth Development
2
Elevate St Louis

Teaching and mentoring

—
3
Elevate Usa

Building long-term, life-changing relationships with urban youth, equipping them to thrive and contribute to their community.

Education
4
Elevate New Orleans Inc

To provide athletic and academic training and mentoring to children between the ages of 12-18.

—
5
Uplift
Education
6
Elevate Oregon

Elevating potential, building sustained relationships with urban youth, and charting paths to brighter futures.

Youth Development
7
Elevate Youth Inc

Empower underserved youth through outdoor programs.

Youth Development
8
Elevate Foundation

Education

Human Services
9
Elevate Your G a M E

Motivating underserved urban youth to excel in their academics and character to empower them to be leaders who bring about positive changes in their schools, communities and the world.

Youth Development
10
Elevate Academy

Public Education.

Education
11
Elevate Ccic Inc

To encourage, connect and grow small and start up businesses by providing resources, learning opportunities to empower success for the economic prosperity of the region.

Employment
12
Elevate Orange County

Building long-term, life changing relationships with urban youth, equipping them to thrive and contribute to their community.

Youth Development
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Elevate Bridgeport Inc; the most unlike its peers is Elevate West Alabama. 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

18 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.

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

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
18/18
Grantees still filing
14/18
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ELEVATE BRIDGEPORT INC: $130,685 · EducationELEVATE BRIDGEPORT INCELEVATE LOUISVILLE INC: $100,000 · EducationELEVATE LOUISVILLE INCELEVATE WEST ALABAMA: $100,000 · EducationELEVATE WEST ALABAMAELEVATE ATLANTA INC: $75,000 · EducationELEVATE ATLANTA INCELEVATE DALLAS: $75,000 · EducationELEVATE DALLASCOLORADO UPLIFT INC: $75,000 · EducationCOLORADO UPLIFT INCELEVATE NJ: $75,000 · EducationELEVATE NJELEVATE METRO KC: $75,000 · EducationELEVATE METRO KCELEVATE JACKSONVILLE INC: $75,000 · EducationELEVATE JACKSONVILLE INCElevate Indianapolis Inc: $50,000 · EducationElevate Indianapolis Inc+1 more: $25,000 · EducationELEVATE NAVAJO: $150,000 · Youth DevelopmentELEVATE NAVAJOELEVATE TAMPA BAY INC: $100,000 · Youth DevelopmentELEVATE TAMPA BAY INCELEVATE NEW YORK INC: $75,000 · Youth DevelopmentELEVATE NEW YORK INCFLORIDA LEADERSHIP VENTURE: $75,000 · Youth DevelopmentFLORIDA LEADERSHIP VENTUREELEVATE NEW ENGLAND INC: $75,000 · Youth DevelopmentELEVATE NEW ENGLAND INCELEVATE SAVANNAH: $50,000 · Youth DevelopmentELEVATE SAVANNAHELEVATE BIRMINGHAM: $75,000 · Other
Education$855,685Youth Development$525,000Other$75,000

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 budgetELEVATE NAVAJO: $150,000 over 3y, 12% of budgetELEVATE BRIDGEPORT INC: $130,685 over 3y, 14% of budgetELEVATE LOUISVILLE INC: $100,000 over 2y, 39% of budgetELEVATE WEST ALABAMA: $100,000 over 2y, 45% of budgetELEVATE TAMPA BAY INC: $100,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetELEVATE NEW YORK INC: $75,000 over 3y, 14% of budgetELEVATE ATLANTA INC: $75,000 over 3y, 5.9% of budgetELEVATE DALLAS: $75,000 over 2y, 18% of budgetFLORIDA LEADERSHIP VENTURE: $75,000 over 3y, 1.1% of budgetCOLORADO UPLIFT INC: $75,000 over 3y, 0.6% of budgetELEVATE NJ: $75,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetELEVATE NEW ENGLAND INC: $75,000 over 3y, 1.7% of budgetELEVATE METRO KC: $75,000 over 3y, 6.7% of budgetELEVATE BIRMINGHAM: $75,000 over 2y, 11% of budgetELEVATE JACKSONVILLE INC: $75,000 over 3y, 3.4% of budgetElevate Indianapolis Inc: $50,000 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetELEVATE SAVANNAH: $50,000 over 2y, 4.2% of budgetELEVATE AUGUSTA INC: $25,000 over 1y, 17% 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.

Natl Christian Charit…National Philanthropi…Donor Advised Charita…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Natl Christian Charitable Fdn IncGA13.4× affinity13 shared granteesties to 5 of 5Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Natl Christian Charitable Fdn Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · American Online Giving Foundation 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 Elevate USA funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Elevate USA. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%3%13%28%50%funder's share of their income ↑0%6%13%19%25%share of the org’s income from government →median 21%
  • Elevate Bridgeport Inc: 21% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
3get 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 · 0–25%
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.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Elevate USA?

Find your warmest path to Elevate USA 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 18 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 Elevate USA’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