· Public charity
Neighborhood Progress Inc
Cleveland neighborhood progress is committed to advancing its mission of fostering communities of choice and opportunity.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 34 grants below total $6,650,642 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $7,015,183 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $364,541 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.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $20k
- $10k–50k11 grants · $293k
- $50k–250k14 grants · $1.9M
- $250k+6 grants · $4.5M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| LOCAL FOCAL - NEW VILLAGE CORPORATION | $2,818,954 |
| CLEVELAND HOUSING PARTNERS | $531,558 |
| JEFFERSON-PURITAS WEST PARK CDC | $296,554 |
| UNION-MILES DEVELOPMENT | $280,503 |
| BURTEN BELL CARR DEVELOPMENT | $276,608 |
| HARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES | $254,939 |
| OLD BROOKLYN COMMUNITY | $206,836 |
| LOCAL INITIATIVE SUPPORT CORPO | $200,000 |
| FAMICOS FOUNDATION | $173,333 |
| WEST PARK KAMM'S | $166,613 |
| ST CLAIR SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT | $165,000 |
| NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOODS CDC | $156,250 |
| METRO WEST COMMUNITY | $154,144 |
| MIDTOWN CLEVELAND INC | $130,443 |
| SLAVIC VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT | $109,200 |
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, $366k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 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.
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 +25% since the first grant, against +13% for the ones you funded once.
26 repeat relationships — 19 still active in FY2025, 7 since wound down; 15 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, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $559k 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
- NVNEW VILLAGE CORPORATION9× · 2017–2025 · $4.5M · revenue +100% · 53% of their budget
- FFFAMICOS FOUNDATION9× · 2017–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +25%
- OBOLD BROOKLYN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +326%
Funded once
- LFLOCAL FOCAL LLCone grant, 2024 · $443k
- COCITY OF CLEVELANDone grant, 2022 · $121k
IN OUR BACKYARDS INCone grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue -23%
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.
Cleveland neighborhood progress is committed to advancing its mission of fostering communities of choice and opportunity. our vision is for all of cleveland's neighborhoods to be attractive, vibrant communities where people from all…
CCDCs purpose is to review and process grants, loans, tax incremental financing and provide other assistance to eligible businesses/others within the city of Cleveland. This assistance is designed to promote economic growth and to retain…
Cncurc's mission is to stabilize and revitalize the community by increasing homeownership, eliminating blight, and supporting business development.
Provide services to its residents, business owners and stakeholders that enhance and maintain the westown neighborhoods and businesses. wcdc's service area known as westown is a vibrant, historic and culturally diverse city neighborhood…
To strengthen the core assets of downtown cincinnati, create great civic spaces, high-density/mixed-use developments, and preserve historic structures.
The East Dayton Neighborhood Development Corporation EDNDC exists to expand access to safe decent and affordable housing while improving neighborhood amenities in Twin Towers. Our work is focused on creating lasting social economic and…
To strengthen the capacity of community development corporations (cdcs) to serve as leaders in neighborhood revitalization initiatives that meet community needs in a way that measurably improves residents' quality of life. stimulate…
Npcdc's mission is to initate, sponsor and operate housing and economic development projects that create economic stability and upward mobility for low-income families in metropolitan washington, dc.
Occd's purpose is to develop, implement and improve federal, state and local programs for community development and to develop and improve the professional standards and practices of all phases of public administration which are related…
Beautify and increase the livability of the Boardman community focusing on housing, commercial and retail development, and workforce training. The association collaborates with other organizations, municipalities, business leaders and…
The mission of the neighborhood developers, inc (tnd) is to create strong neighborhoods enabling community members to secure a stable home, achieve economic mobility, and determine their own future. tnd employs four investment strategies…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Clair Superior Development Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Northeast Ohio Voter Advocates 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 43 years old; the field is 22. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% 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 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.
43 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. 43 of the 77 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 NEW VILLAGE CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds BURTEN BELL CARR DEVELOPMENT INC ↗
- Who funds FAMICOS FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOODS CDC ↗
- Who funds SLAVIC VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds OLD BROOKLYN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds OHIO CITY INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds Collinwood and Nottingham Village Development Corp ↗
- Who funds CHN HOUSING PARTNERS ↗
- Who funds TREMONT WEST DEVELOPMENT CORP ↗
- Who funds UNION MILES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds METRO WEST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION ↗
- Who funds MIDTOWN CLEVELAND INC ↗
- Who funds ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC ↗
- Who funds NORTHEAST SHORES DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds ST CLAIR SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds JEFFERSON-PURITAS WEST PARK CDC ↗
- Who funds VILLAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds THE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds HARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER ↗
- Who funds WEST PARK KAMM'S NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ↗
- Who funds LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Greater Cleveland Neighborhood Centers ↗
- Who funds UNIVERSITY CIRCLE INCORPORATED ↗
- Who funds LITTLE ITALY REDEVELOPMENT CORP ↗
- Who funds EAST 66TH STREET SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds IN OUR BACKYARDS INC ↗
- Who funds CAMPUS DISTRICT 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: The Cleveland Foundation · The George Gund Foundation · The McGregor Foundation · East 66th Street Services Inc · Enterprise Community Partners Inc · The Char and Chuck Fowler Family Foundation · Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland · Mt Sinai Health Care Foundation · The Cleveland Clinic Foundation Group Return · Ohio Community Development Finance Fund · The Cleveland Clinic Foundation · Jack Joseph & Morton Mandel 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 Neighborhood Progress 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.
- Ironbound Community Corporation — 100% of income from government
- Enterprise Community Partners Inc — 22% 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.