Skip to content
Project for Public Spaces Inc at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Project for Public Spaces Inc

Project for public spaces co-creates outstanding gathering places with the people who use them every day, and supports public space champions through convening, learning opportunities, and advocacy.

$306k
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
4
States reached
$70k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its 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, FY2018 to 2024.

Community Improvement$785kEducation$260kArts & Culture$210kReligion$105kHousing & Shelter$100kRecreation & Sports$100k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $96k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $210k
$70,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$571k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
DETROIT ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSOCIATION$70,000
OPENPLANS INC$70,000
ATLANTA DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT$70,000
SPRINGFIELD CULTURAL PARTNERSHIP INC$48,000
GROWHOUSE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT GROUP$48,000
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 (FY22–22, $100k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%WOMEN IN NEED INC DBA WIN (VEND): $100k → 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 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
Downtown Development Corporation of Tucson Arizona
—
2
Downtown Dallas Inc

Downtown Dallas, Inc. (DDI), is the champion of a clean and safe Downtown and of the economic development and vibrancy of this community of diverse, unique neighborhoods. DDI: Mobilizes and amplifies the services of public agencies.…

—
3
Downtown Improvement District Inc

Portland downtown stimulates a vibrant, thriving, and sustainable downtown community.

—
4
Minneapolis Downtown Council

To create an extraordinary downtown minneapolis, applying the core values of leadership, collaboration, advocacy and innovation.

—
5
Rochester Downtown Alliance

To create, enhance, and promote a downtown experience that is welcoming, fun, and livable.

—
6
Detroit Economic Growth Corporation

Promotion of activities to spur economic growth and revitalization in the city of detroit

—
7
Downtown Winston-Salem Partnership Inc

Promotion of downtown, public safety, implementation of downtown plan, increased cleaning, and enhanced aesthetics of public spaces.

—
8
Downtown San Diego Partnership Inc

The downtown san diego partnership serves as the principal voice and driving force behind the economic prosperity and cultural vitality of downtown san diego through membership, advocacy, enhanced services, and community investment.

—
9
Downtown Jackson Partners Inc

To ensure that downtown jackson remains clean, safe, and bustling. the organization is the designated management and economic development agency for the 65 block downtown business improvement district.

—
10
Indianapolis Downtown Marketing Inc

Indianapolis Downtown Marketing, Inc. (IDMI) exists to improve downtown Indianapolis. IDMI focuses on marketing downtown businesses, destinations, organizations, activities and events.

—
11
Downtown Manhattan Inc

Downtown manhattan, inc. is a not-for-profit community volunteer organization working in the areas of economic development, street design, retail and business recruitment and marketing and promotion. it is our mission to increase consumer…

—
12
Downtown Detroit Partnership Inc

Our mission is to advance detroit by driving engagement, development and programs that benefit businesses, residents and visitors throughout the downtown's urban core. we strengthen and support downtown detroit through strategic…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Downtown Cleveland Alliance; the most unlike its peers is Openplans 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

19 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. 19 of the 27 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
19/19
Grantees still filing
9/19
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

HAWTHORNE SOCIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION INC: $100,000 · OtherHAWTHORNE SOCIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION INCMARION PUBLIC LIBRARY: $100,000 · OtherMARION PUBLIC LIBRARYCITY OF CLEVELAND: $100,000 · OtherCITY OF CLEVELANDFARMINGTON PUBLIC LIBRARY: $80,000 · OtherFARMINGTON PUBLIC LIBRARYCity of Springdale: $80,000 · OtherCity of SpringdaleCity of Siloam Springs: $80,000 · OtherCity of Siloam SpringsFAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT #1: $80,000 · OtherFAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT #1City of Pea Ridge: $80,000 · OtherCity of Pea RidgeCITY OF SAN ANTONIO: $50,000 · OtherCITY OF SAN ANTONIO+1 more: $25,000 · OtherDOWNTOWN CLEVELAND ALLIANCE: $100,000 · Community ImprovementDOWNTOWN CLEVELAND ALLIANCERochester Downtown Development Corporation: $100,000 · Community ImprovementRochester Downtown Developmen…DOWNTOWN ARLINGTON MANAGEMENT CORP: $75,000 · Community ImprovementDOWNTOWN ARLINGTON MANAGEMENT…DOWNTOWN DAYTON PARTNERSHIP CORP: $75,000 · Community ImprovementDOWNTOWN DAYTON PARTNERSHIP C…DETROIT ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSOCIATION: $70,000 · Community ImprovementDETROIT ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSOC…SPRINGFIELD CULTURAL PARTNERSHIP INC ATTN KAREN FINN: $48,000 · Community ImprovementSPRINGFIELD CULTURAL PARTNERS…REPAIR THE WORLD: $25,000 · Community ImprovementGROWHOUSE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT GROUP: $48,000 · Arts & CultureGROWHOUSE …CENTRAL TERMINAL RESTORATION CORP: $40,000 · Arts & CultureCENTRAL TE…BUFFALO HERITAGE CAROUSEL INC: $40,000 · Arts & CultureBUFFALO HE…THE PEWABIC SOCIETY INC: $25,000 · Arts & CultureTHE PEWABI…MOTOWN HISTORICAL MUSUEM INC: $25,000 · Arts & CultureMOTOWN HIS…WOMEN IN NEED INC: $100,000 · Human ServicesAUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION: $100,000 · Recreation & SportsMOUNT SEQUOYAH CENTER INC: $80,000 · ReligionOPENPLANS INC: $70,000 · Public BenefitATLANTA DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT INC: $70,000 · Crime & Legal
Other$775,000Community Improvement$493,000Arts & Culture$178,000Human Services$100,000Recreation & Sports$100,000Religion$80,000Public Benefit$70,000Crime & Legal$70,000

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 budgetHAWTHORNE SOCIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetWOMEN IN NEED INC: $100,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDOWNTOWN CLEVELAND ALLIANCE: $100,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetAUSTIN PARKS FOUNDATION: $100,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetRochester Downtown Development Corporation: $100,000 over 1y, 3.7% of budgetMOUNT SEQUOYAH CENTER INC: $80,000 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetDOWNTOWN ARLINGTON MANAGEMENT CORP: $75,000 over 1y, 10% of budgetDOWNTOWN DAYTON PARTNERSHIP CORP: $75,000 over 1y, 3.3% of budgetOPENPLANS INC: $70,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetDETROIT ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSOCIATION: $70,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSPRINGFIELD CULTURAL PARTNERSHIP INC ATTN KAREN FINN: $48,000 over 1y, 14% of budgetGROWHOUSE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT GROUP: $48,000 over 1y, 29% of budgetCENTRAL TERMINAL RESTORATION CORP: $40,000 over 1y, 5.1% of budgetBUFFALO HERITAGE CAROUSEL INC: $40,000 over 1y, 9.4% of budgetMICHIGAN B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetREPAIR THE WORLD: $25,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetTHE PEWABIC SOCIETY INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetMOTOWN HISTORICAL MUSUEM INC: $25,000 over 1y, 0.8% 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.

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.

Walton Family Foundat…The Ralph C Wilson Jr…Arvest FoundationWK Kellogg FoundationThe Pfizer Foundation…National Philanthropi…The Bank of America C…Vanguard Charitable E…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Walton Family Foundation IncAR15× affinity5 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Walton Family Foundation Inc · The Ralph C Wilson Jr Foundation · Arvest Foundation · WK Kellogg Foundation · The Pfizer Foundation Inc · National Philanthropic Trust · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile 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 Project for Public Spaces Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Project for Public Spaces Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely 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 27 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 Project for Public Spaces’ 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