· Public charity
Living Cities Inc the National Community Development Initiative
Living cities harnesses the collective power of philanthropy and financial institutions to improve the lives of low-income people and the cities where they live.
What you funded, over time
By grantee IRS cause code (NTEE).
A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 50% of LIVING CITIES INC THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k4 grants · $40k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $930k
- $250k+4 grants · $9.6M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FUSE CORP | $6,000,000 |
| SOCIAL IMPACT FUND | $2,000,000 |
| ACTIVEST LLC | $950,000 |
| BROOKINGS | $625,000 |
| MONTOPOLIS | $200,000 |
| CITY OF MEMPHIS | $100,000 |
| CITY OF CHARLOTTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | $100,000 |
| CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | $100,000 |
| CITY OF ATLANTA | $100,000 |
| NASHVILLE OFFICE OF DEI | $100,000 |
| YOUTPRISE | $71,409 |
| FRONTLINE SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL | $56,300 |
| HOMEOWNERSHIP COUNCIL OF AMERICA | $52,500 |
| CITY OF CLEVELAND | $50,000 |
| HISPANICS IN PHILANTHROPHY | $10,000 |
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, $355k) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 53% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants spread fairly evenly across need levels.
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 +29% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.
18 repeat relationships — 7 still active in FY2025, 11 since wound down; 10 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, 15% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7.3M 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
THE URBAN INSTITUTE4× · 2018–2024 · $705k · revenue +46%- MPMARYLAND PHILANTHROPY NETWORK3× · 2017–2019 · $420k · revenue +362%
- CFCODE FOR AMERICA LABS INC2× · 2018–2019 · $240k · revenue +97%
Funded once
- BBORROWERSone grant, 2019 · $702k
- SFSURDNA FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2020 · $244k · revenue +16%
- COCITY OF NEW ORLEANS - NOPDone grant, 2017 · $242k
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.
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
The washington area community investment fund (wacif) is a nonprofit community loan fund focused on increasing equity and economic opportunity in the washington, dc area's underserved communities. wacif's mission is driven is driven by…
Common future is a network of pioneering leaders across the u.s. and canada who work deeply within their communities to create alternative approaches to business, philanthropy, and investing. we envision an economy that has transitioned…
MCF is a vibrant philanthropic community connecting, strengthening and mobilizing the power of philanthropy to advance prosperity and equity.
To lead, serve and collaborate to mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better arizona.
To promote philanthropy to make santa cruz county a better place to live, now and in the future.we bring together people, ideas, and resources to inspire philanthropy and accomplish great things.
The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.
United way's mission is to end intergenerational poverty in our region by harnessing, leveraging and strategically investing the collective power of donors, advocates and volunteers, to help individuals and families break the cycle of…
We empower directors and transform boards to be future ready.
Spark lasting social justice change, mobilizing people, capital, & expertise for a fair brooklyn.
Ca fwd drives action to identify solutions that can be taken to scale to meet the challenges the state is facing. the organization is driven by the belief that regional solutions across the state will help ensure economic, environmental,…
The minnesota chamber of commerce proactively leads the business community statewide to: advance pro-business, responsible minnesota public policy that creates jobs and grows the econony; provde member services to address evolving business…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Minneapolis Foundation and the most unlike its peers is The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 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 34 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 5% lost their exemption, against 13% 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.
52 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. 52 of the 99 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 FUSE Corps ↗
- Who funds Social Impact Fund ↗
- Who funds NUSENDA FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE URBAN INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds Youthprise ↗
- Who funds THE SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds THE MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds MARYLAND PHILANTHROPY NETWORK ↗
- Who funds SURDNA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds CODE FOR AMERICA LABS INC ↗
- Who funds Knowledgeworks Foundation ↗
- Who funds MONTOPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds THE MIAMI FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds BLUEHUB CAPITAL INC ↗
- Who funds THE NATHAN CUMMINGS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NEW JERSEY ↗
- Who funds FII - NATIONAL ↗
- Who funds CENTER FOR ECONOMIC INCLUSION ↗
- Who funds CFLEADS ↗
- Who funds PHILADELPHIA CITY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds HILLSIDE CHILDREN'S CENTER ↗
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: Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund Inc · National Recreation and Park Association · National League of Cities Institute Inc · The Kresge Foundation · The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · The Ford Foundation · WK Kellogg Foundation · Annie E Casey Foundation Inc · Gates Foundation · Wells Fargo Foundation · The Recycling Partnership Inc · The Rockefeller 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 Living Cities Inc the National Community Development Initiative 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, a single department, or state — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Bluehub Capital Inc — 32% of income from government
- President and Fellows of Harvard College — 7% of income from government
- Newark Alliance Inc — 6% of income from government
- Cfleads — 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.