Skip to content
Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· 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 it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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 2024.

Housing & Shelter$1.7MCommunity Improvement$1.0MHealth$40k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$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

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 (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 its 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
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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has 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
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

  • 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

    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
    04the grantee network

    7 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.

    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)
    7/7
    Grantees still filing
    7/7
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and 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 grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's 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
    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 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 ↗

    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.

    Central Ohio Communit…Central Ohio Communit…Ohio Community Develo…Columbus FoundationHarry C Moores Founda…Ohio Capital Impact C…United Way of Central…Charities Aid Foundat…Amazonsmile Foundation
    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

    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 Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus. Bigger dots raise more.

    2024
    ’20’21’22’23’24
    no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's 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, FY20–24
      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.
      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 from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 7 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      Play a game based on Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus’ 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