How much did National Urban League Inc grant in FY2024?

National Urban League Inc reported 254 grants totaling $54,999,706 in its FY2024 IRS filing.

Where is National Urban League Inc based?

National Urban League Inc is based in NY.

National Urban League Inc

Foundation Dossiers Mostly funded, not a grantmaker — see who funds it →

· Public charity

National Urban League Inc

The urban league is a nonpartisan, civil rights and community-based movement that serves over two million people each year, providing direct services, research, and policy advocacy to help individuals and communities reach their fullest potential.

$55M

Granted FY2024still arriving

254

Grants FY2024still arriving

States reached

$2.6M

Largest

01What you fund

01100% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.

Community Improvement$144MHuman Services$69MCivil Rights$48MEducation$2.5MHousing & Shelter$2.2MEnvironment$1.8MYouth Development$976kReligion$600kOther$0

02FY2024 · 254 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

Under $10k1 grant · $5k
$10k–50k101 grants · $1.2M
$50k–250k91 grants · $12M
$250k+61 grants · $41M

$100,000

Median grant

States reached

$281M

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
URBAN LEAGUE OF WESTCHESTER	$2,607,866
URBAN LEAGUE OF ESSEX COUNTY	$2,451,800
DETROIT URBAN LEAGUE	$2,158,114
URBAN LEAGUE OF PALM BEACH COUNTY INC	$2,109,130
PINELLAS COUNTY URBAN LEAGUE INC	$1,990,344
LOUISVILLE URBAN LEAGUE	$1,662,017
URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER ATLANTA	$1,275,104
INDIANAPOLIS URBAN LEAGUE	$1,252,455
URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER PITTSBURGH	$1,245,771
CHICAGO URBAN LEAGUE	$1,102,217
MARTINDALE BRIGHTWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP	$1,055,000
HOUSTON AREA URBAN LEAGUE	$874,520
URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER NEW ORLEANS	$807,527
AUSTIN AREA URBAN LEAGUE INC	$774,068
BUFFALO URBAN LEAGUE	$752,456

02The need

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.

show:

Your human-services grants (FY17–24, $151.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 85% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

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.

03Your edge

repeat funding

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.

96%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$256M · 144 repeat orgs$12M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +21% since the first grant, against +16% for the ones you funded once.

144 repeat relationships — 128 still active in FY2024, 16 since wound down; 124 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

144

326

Total granted

$256M

$4.4M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+21%

+16%

Still filing today

93%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 87% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $7.2M went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

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

Human ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterYouth DevelopmentPublic BenefitOther

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

UL
URBAN LEAGUE OF ESSEX COUNTY
8× · 2017–2024 · $18M · revenue +49% · 35% of their budget
PC
Pinellas County Urban League Inc
8× · 2017–2024 · $14M · revenue +56% · 29% of their budget
TL
THE LOUISVILLE URBAN LEAGUE INC
8× · 2017–2024 · $11M · revenue +165% · 29% of their budget

Funded once

PR
PATHWAY RESOURCE CENTER INC
one grant, 2022 · $500k · revenue -38% · 31% of their budget
UL
Urban League of the Greater San Francisco Bay Areagraduated
one grant, 2020 · $225k · revenue +64%
PC
PROACT COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS INC
one grant, 2023 · $125k · revenue +119%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

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.

Urban Leaders Fellowship

The mission of Urban Leaders Fellowship is to transform communities through people, partnership, and policy. ULF pursues this mission through our flagship program, a leadership development Fellowship focused on practical experience in…

Civil Rights

Madison County Urban League Inc

Madison county urban league, inc. provides direct services in housing, employment, and education, to improve the quality of life for disadvantaged people.

Human Services

Colorado Urban Leadership Foundation

The mission of the Urban Leadership Foundation of Colorado is to invest in the development of minority leaders, empower them to serve in the interest of community, and leverage all resources to address the racial, economic, education,…

Education

Urban Neighborhood Initiatives Inc

Urban Neighborhood Initiatives, Inc. (UNI) engages in comprehensive action to address human and community development. Individuals and families are enthused as they prosper and become encouraged to invest in their homes and communities.

Human Services

Greater Warren Youngstown Urban League

To enable African Americans and other underserved urban residents to secure economic self-reliance parity power and civil rights.

Human Services

Urban League of Detroit and Southeastern Michigan

To enable african americans and people in need to reach their full human potential

—

Chicago United for Equity

Connecting and amplifying the power of individuals to build a just, equitable, and inclusive city.

Civil Rights

Urban League of the State of Arkansas Inc

To improve education youth development health and wellness in African American communities throughout the State of Arkansas

—

Tacoma Urban League

To assist African Americans, other ethnic minorities and economically disadvantaged individuals and families in the achievement of social equity and economic independence.

Human Services

Chicago United

To achieve parity in economic opportunity for people of color by advancing multiracial leadership in corporate governance, expanding the talent pipline for executive-level management, and growing minority businesses.

Philanthropy

Greater Stark County Urban League Inc

Promote urban league development

Human Services

Urban Impact Initiative Massachusetts

Urban Impact is dedicated to prioritizing the reduction of the impact of poverty for families in the Commonwealth. The organization offers a plethora of small business corporate and community opportunities. These opportunities include…

Youth Development

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh and the most unlike its peers is Minority Contractor Collaboration. 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.

the sector your giving your giving is ahead of the sector the sector’s ahead of you· dot size = how much the theme matters to each side

Ordered by the change in your giving — leaning in on top, pulling back at the bottom. The bar between the two dots is how out of step you are with the sector. Hover any row for detail.

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 41 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.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.7% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.7%4/597

the rest of the field

13%

240,392/1,818,968

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.

04the grantee network

176 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. 176 of the 597 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.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

170/176

Grantees still filing

107/176

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Human Services$151,138,503Other$76,066,203Community Improvement$12,154,078Housing & Shelter$9,082,021Education$7,587,059Employment$7,117,511Religion$2,100,000

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.

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.

The Indianapolis Foundation IncIN76.1× affinity71 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Indianapolis Foundation Inc · Central Indiana Community Foundation Inc · United Way of Central Indiana Inc · Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust · Eugene & Marilyn Glick Foundation · Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing Partnership Inc · The Westfield Insurance Foundation · Nicholas H Noyes Jr Memorial Foundation · The Mind Trust Inc · Maurer Family Foundation Inc · Indiana University Health Inc · Eli Lilly and Company 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 Urban League 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.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

1get no government money at all

71report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

4rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–25

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.

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 camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines