Skip to content
Neighborhood Progress Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Neighborhood Progress Inc

Cleveland neighborhood progress is committed to advancing its mission of fostering communities of choice and opportunity.

$7.0M
Granted FY2025still arriving
34
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$2.8M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Community Improvement$19MHousing & Shelter$4.7MEnvironment$1.7MPhilanthropy$350kEmployment$340kPublic Benefit$210kEducation$63kCrime & Legal$40kOther$0
02FY2025 · 34 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 34 grants below total $6,650,642, the rows itemized in this filing. The $7,015,183 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $364,541 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $20k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $293k
  • $50k–250k14 grants · $1.9M
  • $250k+6 grants · $4.5M
$97,500
Median grant
4
States reached
$14M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its 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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%HARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES: $255k → 17%HARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES: $61k → 17%HARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES: $19k → 17%Harvard Community Services: $6k → 17%EAST END NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE INC: $25k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$25M · 26 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +27% since the first grant, against +13% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
35

Total granted

$25M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
+13%

Still filing today

92%
43%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $559k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesEducationRecreation & SportsReligionOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). 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

  • NV
    NEW VILLAGE CORPORATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $4.5M · revenue +100% · 53% of their budget
  • FF
    FAMICOS FOUNDATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $2.3M · revenue +50%
  • OB
    OLD BROOKLYN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.2M · revenue +326%

Funded once

  • LF
    LOCAL FOCAL LLC
    one grant, 2024 · $443k
  • CO
    CITY OF CLEVELAND
    one grant, 2022 · $121k
  • IN OUR BACKYARDS INC
    one grant, 2018 · $50k · revenue -23%
How this is measured

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

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Neighborhood Progress Inc

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…

Community Improvement
2
Cleveland Citywide Development Corporation

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…

Community Improvement
3
Cincinnati Northside Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation

Cncurc's mission is to stabilize and revitalize the community by increasing homeownership, eliminating blight, and supporting business development.

Community Improvement
4
Westown Community Development Corp

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…

Community Improvement
5
Cincinnati Center City Development Corp

To strengthen the core assets of downtown cincinnati, create great civic spaces, high-density/mixed-use developments, and preserve historic structures.

Community Improvement
6
East Dayton Neighborhood Development Corporation

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…

Housing & Shelter
7
Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus

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…

Philanthropy
8
The Midtown Community Development Foundation
Philanthropy
9
The Non-Profit Community Developmen Corporation of Dc

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.

Housing & Shelter
10
Ohio Conference of Community Development Inc

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…

—
11
Boardman Community Development Association

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…

Community Improvement
12
The Neighborhood Developers Inc

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…

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is St Clair Superior Development Corporation; 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.
04the grantee network

43 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
42/43
Grantees still filing
27/43
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW VILLAGE CORPORATION: $4,525,917 · Community ImprovementNEW VILLAGE CORPORATIONNORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOODS CDC: $2,038,824 · Community ImprovementNORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOODS CDCSLAVIC VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT: $1,446,499 · Community ImprovementSLAVIC VILLAGE DEVELOPMENTOHIO CITY INCORPORATED: $890,165 · Community ImprovementOHIO CITY INCORPORATEDTREMONT WEST DEVELOPMENT CORP: $750,947 · Community ImprovementTREMONT WEST DEVELOPMENT CORPUNION MILES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $732,860 · Community ImprovementMETRO WEST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION: $659,538 · Community ImprovementMIDTOWN CLEVELAND INC: $626,413 · Community ImprovementENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC: $559,900 · Community Improvement+12 more: $1,573,993 · Community Improvement+12 moreBURTEN BELL CARR DEVELOPMENT INC: $4,499,320 · Housing & ShelterBURTEN BELL CARR DEVELOPMENT INCFAMICOS FOUNDATION: $2,301,498 · Housing & ShelterFAMICOS FOUNDATIONCHN HOUSING PARTNERS: $793,207 · Housing & ShelterCHN HOUSING PARTNERS+2 more: $32,338 · Housing & ShelterOLD BROOKLYN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $1,217,640 · OtherOLD BROOKLYN COMMUN…Collinwood and Nottingham Village Development Corp: $828,051 · OtherCollinwood and Nott…NORTHEAST SHORES DEVELOPMENT: $460,500 · OtherNORTHEAST SHORES DE…ST CLAIR SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $451,974 · OtherST CLAIR SUPERIOR D…LOCAL FOCAL LLC: $442,984 · OtherLOCAL FOCAL LLCWEST PARK KAMM'S NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT: $276,507 · OtherWEST PARK KAMM'S NE…+39 more: $892,356 · Other+39 moreHARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER: $340,964 · Human ServicesEAST END NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE ASSOCIATION: $25,000 · Human ServicesTHE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION: $350,000 · PhilanthropyIN OUR BACKYARDS INC: $50,000 · EducationTHE LITERACY COOPERATIVE OF GREATER CLEVELAND: $7,500 · EducationBIKE CLEVELAND: $10,000 · Recreation & Sports
Community Improvement$13,805,056Housing & Shelter$7,626,363Other$4,570,012Human Services$365,964Philanthropy$350,000Education$57,500Recreation & Sports$10,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEW VILLAGE CORPORATION: $4,525,917 over 9y, 53% of budgetBURTEN BELL CARR DEVELOPMENT INC: $4,499,320 over 9y, 19% of budgetFAMICOS FOUNDATION: $2,301,498 over 9y, 5.8% of budgetNORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOODS CDC: $2,038,824 over 9y, 13% of budgetSLAVIC VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT: $1,446,499 over 9y, 9.0% of budgetOLD BROOKLYN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $1,217,640 over 9y, 15% of budgetOHIO CITY INCORPORATED: $890,165 over 8y, 15% of budgetCollinwood and Nottingham Village Development Corp: $828,051 over 6y, 20% of budgetCHN HOUSING PARTNERS: $793,207 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetTREMONT WEST DEVELOPMENT CORP: $750,947 over 9y, 16% of budgetUNION MILES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $732,860 over 6y, 14% of budgetMETRO WEST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION: $659,538 over 7y, 9.0% of budgetMIDTOWN CLEVELAND INC: $626,413 over 8y, 7.4% of budgetENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS INC: $559,900 over 5y, 0.2% of budgetNORTHEAST SHORES DEVELOPMENT: $460,500 over 3y, 55% of budgetST CLAIR SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $451,974 over 6y, 41% of budgetJEFFERSON-PURITAS WEST PARK CDC: $410,340 over 4y, 11% of budgetVILLAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION: $399,005 over 5y, 12% of budgetTHE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION: $350,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetHARVARD COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER: $340,964 over 4y, 14% of budgetWEST PARK KAMM'S NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT: $276,507 over 5y, 16% of budgetGreater Cleveland Neighborhood Centers: $169,018 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetUNIVERSITY CIRCLE INCORPORATED: $132,500 over 3y, 0.7% of budgetLITTLE ITALY REDEVELOPMENT CORP: $108,130 over 2y, 73% of budgetEAST 66TH STREET SERVICES INC: $55,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetIN OUR BACKYARDS INC: $50,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetCAMPUS DISTRICT INC: $40,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetCleveland Development Advisors Community Reinvestment Fund Inc: $30,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetJUMPSTART INC: $30,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INC: $20,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: $20,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetIronbound Community Corporation: $15,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetFAIRFAX RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT: $12,338 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetBIKE CLEVELAND: $10,000 over 1y, 2.1% of budgetMANUFACTURING ADVOCACY & GROWTH NETWORK INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPRESIDENTS COUNCIL FOUNDATION INC: $10,000 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetDOWNTOWN CLEVELAND ALLIANCE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetMOUNT PLEASANT NOW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $8,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetTHE LITERACY COOPERATIVE OF GREATER CLEVELAND: $7,500 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSISTERS OF CHARITY FOUNDATION OF CLEVELAND: $5,100 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, 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 ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Cleveland Foundat…The George Gund Found…The McGregor Foundati…East 66th Street Serv…Enterprise Community …The Char and Chuck Fo…Sisters of Charity Fo…Mt Sinai Health Care …The Cleveland Clinic …Ohio Community Develo…The Cleveland Clinic …Jack Joseph & Morton …
The Cleveland FoundationOH59.7× affinity32 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Neighborhood Progress Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Neighborhood Progress Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 100%
  • Ironbound Community Corporation: 100% of income from government
  • Enterprise Community Partners Inc: 22% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
19report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
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 a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than 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 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 77 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Neighborhood Progress’ filings →

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 endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home