· Public charity
Hester Street Collaborative Inc
To promote architecture, design and art in the community through the development of educational programs and improvements of the physical neighborhood.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2019–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 2 grants below total $100,000 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $113,824 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $13,824 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Pro Bono Design Inc | $50,000 |
| Centro para la Reconstruccion del Habitat Inc | $50,000 |
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 (FY19–22, $140k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, 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.
Which US states your grants reach
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +146% since the first grant, against -20% for the ones you funded once.
15 repeat relationships — 2 still active in FY2024, 13 since wound down.
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 FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
- CPCENTRO PARA LA RECONSTRUCCION DEL HABITAT2× · 2023–2024 · $150k · revenue ×68
- CCCHHAYA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION3× · 2019–2023 · $116k · revenue +243%
- FIFUTURES IGNITE INC2× · 2020–2022 · $100k · revenue +137%
Funded once
- ROREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEYone grant, 2023 · $107k
- PAPARCELERAS AFROCARIBENAS POR LA TRANSFORM BARRIALone grant, 2022 · $95k · revenue -21%
- WAWATERFRONT ALLIANCE INCone grant, 2022 · $80k · revenue -20%
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 join our clients in the struggle to organize, assert their rights and protect their homes. we work to ensure that community voices are centered in the decisions that impact their lives and neighborhoods.
To strenghten people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment, via the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law.
Greenaction mobilizes community power to win victories that change govenment and corporate policies and practices to protect health and promote environmental, economic and social justice.
BK Rot is a community centered closed loop fossilfuel free approach to hauling and compossting food waste in New York City
Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc. (WJCNY) pusues juistice for those denied hian rights, with a focus on agricultural and other low-wage workers, through legal representation, community empowerment and advocacy for institutional…
To build a just and healthy world where toxic chemicals are unthinkable
The organization is a national alliance of racial, economic, and environmental justice organizations that, through shared principles, are building a national movement for racial justice, urban justice, human rights, and democracy.
Black Latinx Asian Charter Collaborative (the Organization") is a nonprofit organization dedicated to elevating charter schools founded and led by people of color in New York City. The organization represents educators and stakeholders in…
CRCJ seeks to build a worker-oriented environmental movement committed to securing a fair and just transition that protects not only the environment but also the livelihoods of workers and their communities.
The Alliance for Collective Action convenes leaders of environmental and social movements to advance solutions for a thriving planet. We advance our mission through the Alliance Center building and community, as well as through Collective…
ACT leads the just, equitable and rapid transition to a clean energy future and diverse climate economy.
New york restoration project ("nyrp") believes that nature is a fundamental right of every new yorker. nyrp works collaboratively with residents in communities across the five boroughs to renovate gardens, restore parks, plant trees,…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Ibero-American Action League Inc and the most unlike its peers is Pro Bono Design Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 25 years old; the field is 18. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 19% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 10% 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.
23 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. 23 of the 25 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 FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK INC ↗
- Who funds PEOPLE'S ACTION INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds PRO BONO DESIGN INC ↗
- Who funds CENTRO PARA LA RECONSTRUCCION DEL HABITAT ↗
- Who funds CHHAYA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds FUTURES IGNITE INC ↗
- Who funds PARCELERAS AFROCARIBENAS POR LA TRANSFORM BARRIAL ↗
- Who funds The Point Community Development Corporation ↗
- Who funds HASER Inc ↗
- Who funds WATERFRONT ALLIANCE INC ↗
- Who funds West Harlem Environmental Action Inc ↗
- Who funds GAYS AND LESBIANS LIVING IN A TRANSGENDER SOCIETY INC ↗
- Who funds LOCAL PROGRESS POLICY INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds EL PUENTE DE WILLIAMSBURG INC ↗
- Who funds NORTH STAR FUND INC ↗
- Who funds HOMETOWN ORGANIZING PROJECT ↗
- Who funds CONNECTICUT CITIZEN RESEARCH GROUP INC ↗
- Who funds MISSOURI JOBS WITH JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds Climate Solutions Accelerator of the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region ↗
- Who funds Rochester Refugee Resettlement Services Inc ↗
- Who funds IBERO-AMERICAN ACTION LEAGUE INC ↗
- Who funds Latino Community Fund of Washington State ↗
- Who funds CAMBA INC ↗
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: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Hispanic Federation Inc · The Ford Foundation · Tides Foundation · Proteus Fund Inc · The Scherman Foundation Inc · Windward Fund · Tides Center · People's Action Institute · New York Foundation · Pinkerton Foundation · Ms Foundation for Women Inc
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 Hester Street Collaborative Inc 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.
- Connecticut Citizen Research Group Inc — 0% of income from government
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.