Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

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.

$250k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What you fund
01100% classified

What you funded, over time

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

Community Improvement$1.6MHousing & Shelter$577kReligion$574kHuman Services$40k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

$50,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$485k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
HOMEPORT$50,000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL PEOPLE$50,000
HOMES ON THE HILL$50,000
GERTRUDE WOOD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION$50,000
FRANKLINTON DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION$50,000
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:

Your human-services grants (FY18–19, $40k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%INTEGRATED SERVICES FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: $30k → 15%INTEGRATED SERVICES FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: $10k → 15%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$2.8M · 7 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

7 repeat relationships — 5 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
0

Total granted

$2.8M
$0

Still filing today

100%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 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
Community ImprovementHousing & ShelterReligionHuman ServicesOther

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

  • FD
    FRANKLINTON DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $579k · revenue +55%
  • HO
    Homes on The Hill Community Development Corp
    8× · 2017–2024 · $579k · revenue +26%
  • CD
    COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL PEOPLE
    8× · 2017–2024 · $574k · revenue +45%

Funded once

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

    04Your field
    04the grantee network

    7 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.

    1
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    3
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    7/7
    Grantees still filing
    7/7
    Grew since you first funded

    Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

    FRANKLINTON DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION — $578,956 · Community ImprovementFRANKLINTON DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONHomes on The Hill Community Development Corp — $578,756 · Community ImprovementHomes on The Hill Community Development CorpGertrude Wood Community Foundation — $433,213 · Community ImprovementGertrude Wood Community FoundationCOLUMBUS HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INC — $495,175 · Housing & ShelterCOLUMBUS HOUSING PARTNE…Franklinton Rising — $81,609 · Housing & ShelterFranklinton RisingCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL PEOPLE — $573,756 · ReligionCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F…INTEGRATED SERVICES FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH — $40,000 · Human Services
    Community Improvement$1,590,925Housing & Shelter$576,784Religion$573,756Human Services$40,000

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

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetFRANKLINTON DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION — $578,956 over 8y, 19% of budgetHomes on The Hill Community Development Corp — $578,756 over 8y, 13% of budgetCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL PEOPLE — $573,756 over 8y, 2.6% of budgetCOLUMBUS HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INC — $495,175 over 8y, 0.9% of budgetGertrude Wood Community Foundation — $433,213 over 8y, 38% of budgetFranklinton Rising — $81,609 over 4y, 6.9% of budgetINTEGRATED SERVICES FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH — $40,000 over 2y, 0.1% 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.

    • Who funds FRANKLINTON DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
    • Who funds Homes on The Hill Community Development Corp
    • Who funds COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL PEOPLE
    • Who funds COLUMBUS HOUSING PARTNERSHIP INC
    • Who funds Gertrude Wood Community Foundation
    • Who funds Franklinton Rising
    • Who funds INTEGRATED SERVICES FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

    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.

    Central Ohio Community ImprovementOH17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: Central Ohio Community Improvement · Central Ohio Community Land Trust Corporation · Ohio Community Development Finance Fund · Columbus Foundation · Harry C Moores Foundation · Ohio Capital Impact Corporation · United Way of Central Ohio Inc · Charities Aid Foundation America · 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 Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus 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%25%56%100%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
      6report 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.

      05Through Plinth

      Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

      How do I get to Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus?

      Find your warmest path to Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

      Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

      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 7 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