Skip to content
Greencroft Communities Foundation Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Greencroft Communities Foundation Inc

Greencroft communities foundation is committed to creating a passion for our communities and inspiring generosity.

$3.5M
Granted FY2025still arriving
4
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$1.1M
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.

Human Services$7.7MHousing & Shelter$104kHealth$56k
02FY2025 · 4 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 4 grants below total $2,349,792, the rows itemized in this filing. The $3,508,245 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $1,158,453 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

  • $50k–250k1 grant · $130k
  • $250k+3 grants · $2.2M
$590,073
Median grant
2
States reached
$20M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GREENCROFT GOSHEN$1,147,219
GREENCROFT MIDDLEBURY INC$590,073
OAK GROVE CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE INC$482,500
WALNUT HILLS RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC$130,000
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 (FY17–22, $31k) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE INC: $21k → 13%SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE INC: $10k → 13%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.
$7.8M · 7 repeat orgs$26k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +62% since the first grant, against +16% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
1

Total granted

$7.8M
$26k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+62%
+16%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’22’23’24’25
Housing & ShelterHuman ServicesHealthOther
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

  • GM
    GREENCROFT MIDDLEBURY INC
    5× · 2017–2025 · $3.6M · revenue +211% · 39% of their budget
  • GG
    GREENCROFT GOSHEN INC
    5× · 2017–2025 · $2.4M · revenue +62%
  • OG
    OAK GROVE CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $1.4M · revenue +28%

Funded once

  • GC
    GREENCROFT CENTRAL MANOR INC
    one grant, 2023 · $26k · revenue +16%
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
Greencroft Communities Foundation Inc

Greencroft communities foundation is committed to creating a passion for our communities and inspiring generosity.

—
2
Edgewater Place Inc

Edgewater place, inc. is a non-profit assisted living community, located in plain city, ohio. it serves residents in the central ohio area, including nearby dublin, delaware, hilliard, london, powell, westerville and marysville. it is…

Human Services
3
Greencroft Retirement Communities Inc

Greencroft communities creates dynamic living communities that embrace the creativity, contributions and challenges of aging for all, grounded in service excellence, compassionate care and mennonite values.

Human Services
4
Christian Care Retirement Apartments Inc

Through christian love and excellence, we are dedicated to providing a fulfilling lifestyle and promoting independence to those we serve

—
5
Garden Path Elder Living Inc

Garden Path Elder Living operates a residential care home for elders that provide assistance with daily living and nursing oversight.

Human Services
6
Rolling Green Village

The mission of rolling green village is to serve senior adults by providing an environment that enriches quality of life and fosters the highest level of independence possible in a setting nurtured by and established on christian ideals.

—
7
Wesley Commons

Wesley commons is a continuing care retirement community that provides value-based health services, including assisted living, intermediate and skilled nursing care, specialized care for alzheimer's and dementia-related illnesses, as well…

Human Services
8
National Church Residences At Home Central Ohio

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors.

—
9
National Church Residences At Home Health and Wellness Central Ohio

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
10
National Church Residences At Home Hospice

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
11
National Church Residences At Home Hospice Central Ohio

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
12
Ncr At Home Health and Wellness

Originating from a christian commitment of service, we provide high quality care, services and communities for seniors

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Greencroft Middlebury Inc; the most unlike its peers is Golden Years Homestead 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.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
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

GREENCROFT MIDDLEBURY INC: $3,632,043 · Housing & ShelterGREENCROFT MIDDLEBURY INCOAK GROVE CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE INC: $1,432,500 · Housing & ShelterOAK GROVE CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE INC+1 more: $77,224 · Housing & ShelterGREENCROFT GOSHEN INC: $2,402,831 · Human ServicesGREENCROFT GOSHEN INC+1 more: $30,964 · Human ServicesWALNUT HILLS RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC: $190,717 · OtherGREENCROFT CENTRAL MANOR INC: $26,447 · OtherGolden Years Homestead Inc: $55,535 · Health
Housing & Shelter$5,141,767Human Services$2,433,795Other$217,164Health$55,535

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 budgetGREENCROFT MIDDLEBURY INC: $3,632,043 over 5y, 39% of budgetGREENCROFT GOSHEN INC: $2,402,831 over 5y, 2.7% of budgetOAK GROVE CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT VILLAGE INC: $1,432,500 over 4y, 5.7% of budgetWALNUT HILLS RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC: $190,717 over 2y, 1.4% of budgetHAVEN HUBBARD HOMES INC: $77,224 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetGolden Years Homestead Inc: $55,535 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetSOUTHFIELD VILLAGE INC: $30,964 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetGREENCROFT CENTRAL MANOR INC: $26,447 over 1y, 5.1% 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.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Greencroft Communities Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Greencroft Communities Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get 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 · 0–15%
    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 8 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 Greencroft Communities’ 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