Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

Tndc's mission is to develop community and provide affordable housing and services for people with low incomes in the tenderloin and throughout san francisco, to promote equitable access to opportunity and resources.

$8.3M
Granted FY2024still arriving
2
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$8.1M
Largest
01What you fund
0197% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY20172024.

Housing & Shelter$21MYouth Development$134kOther$685k
02FY2024 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $225k
  • $250k+1 grant · $8.1M
$8,054,498
Median grant
1
States reached
$114M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TURK STREET INC$8,054,498
POLK SENIOR HOUSING ASSOCIATES LP$225,000
02The need
03

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:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%YOUNG COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS: $75k → 10%YOUTH COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS: $59k → 10%TURK STREET INC: $8.1M → 10%TURK STREET INC: $4.8M → 10%TURK STREET INC: $2.6M → 10%TURK STREET INC: $1.5M → 10%TAYLOR FAMILY HOUSING INC: $1.2M → 10%TURK STREET INC: $956k → 10%AMBASSADOR STREET INC: $929k → 10%POLK SENIOR HOUSING ASSOCIATES LP: $225k → 10%TURK STREET INC: $178k → 10%HOWARD STREET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $125k → 10%TURK STREET INC: $74k → 10%ELLIS STREET INC: $60k → 10%HAIGHT STREET SENIOR HOUSING INC: $50k → 10%EDDY AND TAYLOR ASSOCIATES LP: $50k → 10%TURK AND EDDY ASSOCIATES LP: $50k → 10%TAYLOR FAMILY HOUSING INC: $20k → 10%HOWARD STREET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $10k → 10%WITHOUT WALLS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $75k → 10%WITHOUT WALLS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $74k → 10%CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $75k → 10%CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $60k → 10%CHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $30k → 10%MISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: $75k → 10%COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO: $75k → 10%MISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: $60k → 10%COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER: $60k → 10%MISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: $60k → 10%COMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER: $30k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
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.

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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$20M · 8 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +103% since the first grant, against -98% for the ones you funded once.

8 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
5

Total granted

$20M
$1.1M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+103%
-98%

Still filing today

100%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 97% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $225k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Housing & ShelterYouth DevelopmentOther

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

  • TS
    TURK STREET INC
    7× · 2017–2024 · $18M · revenue +503% · 75% of their budget
  • TF
    TAYLOR FAMILY HOUSING INC
    2× · 2017–2021 · $1.2M · revenue ×33 · 89% of their budget
  • ME
    MISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
    3× · 2017–2019 · $195k · revenue +103%

Funded once

  • AS
    AMBASSADOR SRO INC
    one grant, 2020 · $929k · revenue -100% · 66% of their budget
  • ES
    ELLIS STREET INC
    one grant, 2022 · $60k · revenue -98% · 70% of their budget
  • HS
    HAIGHT STREET SENIOR HOUSING INC
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue -14%

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.

1
Tndc Supporting Fund

To engage in charitable and educational activities that support, benefit and carry out the purposes of tenderloin neighborhood development corporation, a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization that provides affordable housing to low and…

Housing & Shelter
2
Ward Economic Development Corporation

Ward economic development corporation (wedc) was incorporated on november 12, 1987 pursuant to the general nonprofit corporation law of the state of california. wedc was created to achieve the following: (1) to identify and pursue economic…

3
O'farrell Senior Housing Inc

To provide housing for low income persons, and to support tenderloin neighborhood development corporation in carrying out its purpose.

Housing & Shelter
4
Inland Socal Housing Collective

Creating solutions to improve housing outcomes for renters, homebuyers, homeowners, and those experiencing homelessness through education, advocacy and access to resources in the inland socal region.

Housing & Shelter
5
Hip Housing Development Corporation

To alleviate and improve the housing condition of the needy, physically or mentally handicapped, elderly persons and others whose housing needs are not being adequately met in San Mateo County, CA.

Housing & Shelter
6
Tenants Development Corporation

The promotion, maintenance and management of housing in the south end of boston, massachusetts, to low and moderate-income families of every race, religion, and nationality.

Housing & Shelter
7
Charities Housing Development Corp of Santa Clara County

To develop, preserve, & manage high quality affordable housing for low-income individuals & their families. through service enhanced property management & structured resident involvement, chdc contributes to the highest standards of human…

Housing & Shelter
8
Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services Inc

To improve and restore district-wide neighborhoods for the benefit of the residents.

Housing & Shelter
9
Community Resources and Housing Development Corporation

Community resources and housing development corporation provides pathways to home and asset building opportunities to benefit low-to-moderate income communities throughout colorado.

Housing & Shelter
10
Homes for California Dba Homes for Sonoma

Homes for Sonoma is a nonprofit developer creating quality workforce housing options that support safe and sustainable community, and finds efficient, scalable solutions to address the housing crisis in Sonoma County and throughout…

Housing & Shelter
11
City Heights Community Development Corporation

Enhance the quality of life in city heights by working with our community to create and sustain quality affordable housing & livable neighborhoods & foster economic self-sufficiency.

Community Improvement
12
Burbank Housingsr Corporation

To own and operate affordable rental housing.

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Howard Street Development Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Young Community Developers 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

11 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 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 11 of the 14 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.

6
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
11/11
Grantees still filing
6/11
Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

TURK STREET INC — $18,135,381 · Housing & ShelterTURK STREET INCTAYLOR FAMILY HOUSING INC — $1,222,300 · Housing & ShelterTAYLOR FAMILY HOUSING INCAMBASSADOR SRO INC — $928,801 · Housing & Shelter+5 more — $558,852 · Housing & ShelterPOLK SENIOR HOUSING ASSOCIATES LP — $225,000 · OtherMISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY — $194,850 · OtherCOMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO — $164,850 · OtherEDDY AND TAYLOR ASSOCIATES LP — $50,000 · OtherTURK AND EDDY ASSOCIATES LP — $50,000 · OtherYOUNG COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS INC — $134,040 · Youth Development
Housing & Shelter$20,845,334Other$684,700Youth Development$134,040

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetTURK STREET INC — $18,135,381 over 7y, 75% of budgetTAYLOR FAMILY HOUSING INC — $1,222,300 over 2y, 89% of budgetAMBASSADOR SRO INC — $928,801 over 1y, 66% of budgetMISSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY — $194,850 over 3y, 0.5% of budgetCHINATOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER — $164,850 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCOMMUNITY YOUTH CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO — $164,850 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetWITHOUT WALLS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $149,350 over 2y, 88% of budgetHOWARD STREET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $134,652 over 2y, 73% of budgetELLIS STREET INC — $60,000 over 1y, 70% of budgetHAIGHT STREET SENIOR HOUSING INC — $50,000 over 1y, 7.0% of budget
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 San Francisco FoundationCA14.9× affinity5 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The San Francisco Foundation · East West Bank Foundation · Crankstart Foundation · United Way of the Bay Area · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation 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
2021222324
no gov · 00%6%23%51%90%your share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY2024

    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.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 14 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your 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. How we build these →

    Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    More from the funding graph