Skip to content
The Urban Land Institute at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

The Urban Land Institute

Shape the future of the built environment for transformative impact in communities worldwide.

$1.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
5
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.4M
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.

Social Science$8.6MEducation$190kHousing & Shelter$110kYouth Development$103kCommunity Improvement$10kPublic Benefit$10k
02FY2025 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $1,490,648, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,772,418 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $281,770 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

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $67k
  • $250k+1 grant · $1.4M
$20,700
Median grant
2
States reached
$93M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
THE ULI FOUNDATION$1,423,698
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER DALLAS$26,250
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY$20,700
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON$10,000
TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION$10,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LIVABLE STREETS: $100k → 8%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY: $21k → 11%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER DALLAS: $26k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $11k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $11k → 22%THE ULI FOUNDATION: $1.5M → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY: $14k → 11%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER DALLAS: $24k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $10k → 22%THE ULI FOUNDATION: $1.5M → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $14k → 11%BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER DALLAS: $10k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $10k → 22%THE ULI FOUNDATION: $1.4M → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $10k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $10k → 22%THE ULI FOUNDATION: $1.2M → 14%BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $8k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $10k → 22%THE ULI FOUNDATION: $1.2M → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $10k → 22%ULI FOUNDATION: $914k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $10k → 22%ULI FOUNDATION: $847k → 14%LEVY PARK CONSERVANCY: $10k → 16%TEXAS A&M FOUNDATION: $10k → 22%COMMUNITY OF HOPE: $10k → 14%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.

98%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$8.9M · 6 repeat orgs$145k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
5

Total granted

$8.9M
$145k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+48%
+51%

Still filing today

83%
60%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
EducationYouth DevelopmentCommunity ImprovementSocial SciencePublic Safety & DisasterOther
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

  • TU
    THE ULI FOUNDATION
    7× · 2017–2025 · $8.6M · revenue +97%
  • TA
    Texas A&M Foundation
    8× · 2017–2025 · $81k · revenue +90%
  • BG
    BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC
    5× · 2019–2025 · $66k · revenue +48%

Funded once

  • LIVABLE STREETS TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE OF BOSTON INC
    one grant, 2018 · $100k · revenue +17%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
    one grant, 2019 · $15k
  • CO
    COMMUNITY OF HOPEgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue +51%
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
Houston Botanic Garden

To enrich life through discovery, education, and the conservation of plants and the natural environment.

Environment
2
The University of TexasTexas a&M Investment Management Company

To generate superior long-term investment returns to support The University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems as they provide world-class teaching, push the boundaries of discovery, and achieve excellence in patient healthcare for…

Education
3
University of Houston Foundation

University of Houston Foundation provides program support to University of Houston System for various scholarship and educational programs.

Education
4
Trees for Houston

Plant, protect and promote trees all over the greater Houston area.

—
5
Texas a&M Research Foundation

To facilitate research and development within the texas a&m university system and selected other entities.

Education
6
Ucsf Foundation Investment Company

The organization provides professional investment management services for endowed gifts and financial assets entrusted to the ucsf foundation.

Education
7
Baylor Oral Health Foundation

The baylor oral health foundation was established to foster and support the activities and program of the texas a&m university college of dentistry (the college) to provide financial support for excellence at the college, and to advance…

Health
8
University of Virginia Foundation

To provide administrative services to university of virginia (university) entities, university associated organizations, or other entities involved in activities which support the university. to engage in matters pertaining to real…

Education
9
Tulsa Area United Way

The tulsa area united way unites people and resources to improve lives and strengthen our communities.

—
10
Washburn University Foundation

The Foundation was created to assist in the promotion, development and enhancement of the financial resources for Washburn University of Topeka, as well as to receive and hold in trust any assets given in benefit of the University.

Education
11
Ucf Athletics Association Inc

To provide opportunity to young people and develop leaders for industry, philanthropy, education and the community through the intercollegiate athletic experience.

Education
12
United Way of Brazoria County

To educate, unite and focus our community's resources in order to efficiently address the most critical needs of Brazoria County

Philanthropy
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Texas a&M Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Tarrant County 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

8 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. 8 of the 11 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
6/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE ULI FOUNDATION: $8,578,453 · Social ScienceTHE ULI FOUNDATIONBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $65,950 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER DALLAS INC: $60,250 · Youth DevelopmentTexas A&M Foundation: $81,000 · EducationUniversity of Houston College of Business: $20,000 · EducationLIVABLE STREETS TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE OF BOSTON INC: $100,000 · Public Safety & DisasterUNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON: $51,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: $15,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $10,000 · OtherCOMMUNITY OF HOPE: $10,000 · Community ImprovementUpper Kirby District Foundation: $10,000 · Community Improvement
Social Science$8,578,453Youth Development$126,200Education$101,000Public Safety & Disaster$100,000Other$76,000Community Improvement$20,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE ULI FOUNDATION: $8,578,453 over 7y, 15% of budgetTexas A&M Foundation: $81,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER TARRANT COUNTY INC: $65,950 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetBOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF GREATER DALLAS INC: $60,250 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetUniversity of Houston College of Business: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCOMMUNITY OF HOPE: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift FundMA5.3× affinity4 shared granteesties to 1 of 1Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · 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 The Urban Land Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Urban Land Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 11 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 Urban Land Institute’s 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