· Public charity
Homebase Cincinnati
We strengthen organizations that enhance neighborhoods through community building, housing, and economic development.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 21 grants below total $1,469,375 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $1,513,909 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $44,534 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k1 grant · $9k
- $10k–50k10 grants · $290k
- $50k–250k9 grants · $884k
- $250k+1 grant · $287k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Cincinnati Development fund | $286,700 |
| WORKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS (WIN) | $131,271 |
| PRICE HILL WILL | $129,137 |
| COLLEGE HILL CURC | $110,723 |
| WALNUT HILLS REDEV FOUND | $108,925 |
| NEST | $108,136 |
| OTR COMMUNITY HOUSING | $100,000 |
| SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES | $76,337 |
| CLIFTON HEIGHTS CURC | $60,000 |
| AVONDALE DC | $59,041 |
| CAMP WASHINGTON URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORP | $48,107 |
| KENNEDY HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION | $45,000 |
| WESTWOOD WORKSBlume Partners | $37,000 |
| Urban Policy Innovations LLC | $35,826 |
| MADISONVILLE CURC | $34,708 |
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.
Your human-services grants (FY20–24, $197k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 17%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
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.
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.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +56% since the first grant, against -30% for the ones you funded once.
17 repeat relationships — 15 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $394k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
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
- CHCOLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION7× · 2017–2024 · $584k · revenue +110%
- WHWalnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation7× · 2017–2024 · $425k · revenue +56%
- OTOVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY HOUSING7× · 2017–2024 · $386k · revenue +123%
Funded once
- PHPRICE HILL WILLone grant, 2017 · $81k
- OTOVER THE RHINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCEone grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue -57%
- CRCORNERSTONE RENTER EQUITY INCone grant, 2018 · $45k · revenue -39%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
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.
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.
The East Dayton Neighborhood Development Corporation EDNDC exists to expand access to safe decent and affordable housing while improving neighborhood amenities in Twin Towers. Our work is focused on creating lasting social economic and…
Create permanently affordable housing with community-centered development in West Charlotte and beyond
To rehabilitation blighted properties for potential home ownership by low income families.
Mount Washington Community Development Corporation (MWCDC) is a not-for-profit corporation with a mission to engage our community, promote responsible development and provide opportunity to create an inclusive neighborhood for residents,…
To facilitate, develop, and advocate for neighborhood revitalization, affordable housing construction, preservation and economic development in Charleston County.
To stabilize or increase property values in areas of Franklin County suffering from the effects of blighted, vacant, abandoned, tax-foreclosed or economically-stranded properties and to promote and facilitate rehabilitation, reutilization…
Our mission is to facilitate healthy and safe communities by creating programs that educate the Hill District community residents, nurture youth, encourage community and economic development, and promote a livable quality of life. Amani is…
To initiate, plan, finance, develop and manage housing development in the City of Pittsburgh, and upon request, in other municipalities with particular, but not exclusive, emphasis on such development in low to moderate income census…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cincinnati Development Fund and the most unlike its peers is The Urban Land Institute. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 32 years old; the field is 17. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 21% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 2% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
28 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 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 28 of the 31 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.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
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 COLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation ↗
- Who funds OVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY HOUSING ↗
- Who funds PRICE HILL WILL ↗
- Who funds WORKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS ↗
- Who funds CINCINNATI NORTHSIDE COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Madisonville Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation ↗
- Who funds CINCINNATI DEVELOPMENT FUND ↗
- Who funds CAMP WASHINGTON URBAN REVITALIZATION CORPORATION -CWURC- ↗
- Who funds SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES INC ↗
- Who funds Avondale Development Corporation ↗
- Who funds CLIFTON HEIGHTS COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Kennedy Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation ↗
- Who funds OVER THE RHINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ↗
- Who funds Mt Airy Community Urban Redevelopment Enterprise ↗
- Who funds Westwood Works Inc ↗
- Who funds Mt Auburn CDC ↗
- Who funds CORNERSTONE RENTER EQUITY INC ↗
- Who funds Community Matters Cincinnati Inc ↗
- Who funds VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds Clifton Business & Professional Ass ↗
- Who funds THE WESTWOOD COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds BOND HILL ROSELAWN COLLABORATIVE ↗
- Who funds THE ALPAUGH FAMILY ECONOMICS CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ↗
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.
Open a dossier: The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · Carol Ann and Ralph V Haile Jr Foundation · Keep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc · United Way of Greater Cincinnati · Interact for Health · Ohio Capital Impact Corporation · Ohio Community Development Finance Fund · Duke Energy Foundation · First Financial Foundation · George & Margaret McLane Foundation · Ed & Joann Hubert Family Foundation Inc · Cincinnati Institute of Fine Arts
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 Homebase Cincinnati 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.
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.