· Public charity
National League of Cities Institute Inc
The league's mission is to equip locally elected officials with knowledge, tools, and techniques to enhance their ability to govern effectively in their cities.
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.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $7k
- $10k–50k77 grants · $1.7M
- $50k–250k7 grants · $960k
- $250k+1 grant · $740k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| CHILDREN & NATURE NETWORK | $740,000 |
| CITY OF JACKSON MS | $240,000 |
| LONE STAR JUSTICE ALLIANCE | $225,000 |
| MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE | $225,000 |
| REGIONAL YOUTH ADULT SOCIAL ACTION PARTNERSHIP (RYASAP) | $75,000 |
| CIVSTART CORP | $75,000 |
| CENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION | $60,000 |
| CITY OF MONTGOMERY | $60,000 |
| CITY OF DALLAS | $45,000 |
| YOUNG GIFTED & GREEN | $40,000 |
| MADISON PARKS FOUNDATION INC | $40,000 |
| RAIZES COLLECTIVE | $40,000 |
| RIVER BEND NATURE CENTER | $40,000 |
| TRICOUNTY PLAY COLLABORATIVE | $40,000 |
| AWBURY ARBORETUM ASSOCIATION | $40,000 |
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 (FY19–24, $413k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 87% 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.
64 repeat relationships — 25 still active in FY2024, 39 since wound down; 60 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (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 FY2024, 51% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M 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
- DUDREXEL UNIVERSITY2× · 2022–2023 · $1.0M · revenue +8%
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS2× · 2022–2023 · $404k · revenue +23%- MPMADISON PARKS FOUNDATION INC3× · 2019–2024 · $62k · revenue +220%
Funded once
- PCPHILADELPHIA CITY FUND INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $700k · revenue +32%
- NRNEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATIONone grant, 2023 · $271k · revenue -11%
- GSGEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION INCone grant, 2023 · $234k · revenue +13%
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.
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…
To build livable and economically viable communities in the low income areas of This is accomplished by Greater Los Angeles strengthening the skils and self-sufficiency of residents, businesses of residents, businesses and community…
Grow businesses, build wealth and increase reinvestement in the african communities of minnesota
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…
Miami-dade innovation authority bridges the gap between private innovators and the public sector to fast track innovation that improves quality of life for miamians.
We identify shared opportunities and core challenges and offer solutions to the region's most critical issues including skills and talent, regional mobility, infrastructure and inclusive economic growth.
Pidc plans and implements economic development initiatives (see schedule o) which enhance the competitive environment, generate jobs and produce higher tax ratables throughout philadelphia.
Icic drives inclusive economic prosperity in under-resourced communities through innovative research and programs to create jobs, income, and wealth for local residents.
As an active partner, leader and catalyst, we will assist african americans, other minority groups and the disadvantaged attain social and economic equality and stability through direct services and advocacy.
Our mission is to maximize economic development and job creation though advocacy and programs that generate success and value for our Latino and Non-Latino business community.
The strategy center is a think tank/act tank for regional, national and international movement building, founded in 1988 and based in the 10 million-person world city of los angeles. our campaigns, projects, and publications are rooted in…
To facilitate economic structures and policy initiatives that empower Latino business development and foster economic growth across Los Angeles.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hispanic Advocacy and Community Empowerment Through Research and the most unlike its peers is Black American Political Association of California. 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 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 3% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 3% 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.
157 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. 157 of the 338 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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 CHILDREN & NATURE NETWORK ↗
- Who funds AMERICA ACHIEVES INC ↗
- Who funds DREXEL UNIVERSITY ↗
- Who funds PHILADELPHIA CITY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS ↗
- Who funds NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds CIVSTART CORP ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds LONE STAR JUSTICE ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds Research Foundation of the City University of New York ↗
- Who funds GREATER HOUSTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds CATALYST CT INC ↗
- Who funds GEORGIA CITY SOLUTIONS INC ↗
- Who funds Social Progress Imperative Inc ↗
- Who funds MADISON PARKS FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS OF NEW ORLEANS ↗
- Who funds CENTRAL MISSOURI COMMUNITY ACTION ↗
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 · FitLot · AARP · Urban Sustainability Directors Network · The Recycling Partnership Inc · Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Inc · US Green Building Council Inc · National Arbor Day Foundation · Living Cities Inc the National Community Development Initiative · Best Friends Animal Society · National Fish and Wildlife 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 National League of Cities Institute 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.
- Catalyst Ct Inc — 37% of income from government
- Valley Venture Mentoring Service Inc — 32% of income from government
- Wilmington Alliance Inc — 19% of income from government
- The United Way of Greater Waterbury Inc — 6% of income from government
- New Bedford Economic Development Council Inc — 2% of income from government
- Fund for Educational Excellence Inc — 1% 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.