Skip to content
Homebase Cincinnati at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Homebase Cincinnati

We strengthen organizations that enhance neighborhoods through community building, housing, and economic development.

$1.5M
Granted FY2024still arriving
21
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$287k
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 2024.

Community Improvement$3.0MHousing & Shelter$967kPublic Benefit$223kRecreation & Sports$207kHuman Services$106kPhilanthropy$53kSocial Science$10k
02FY2024 · 21 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 21 grants below total $1,469,375, the rows itemized in this filing. The $1,513,909 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $44,534 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 · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $9k
  • $10k–50k10 grants · $290k
  • $50k–250k9 grants · $884k
  • $250k+1 grant · $287k
$48,107
Median grant
3
States reached
$709k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
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 (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. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 17%SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES: $76k → 16%SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES: $55k → 16%SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES: $21k → 16%SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES: $15k → 16%Community Matters: $30k → 16%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.

84%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.8M · 17 repeat orgs$704k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +56% since the first grant, against -30% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
8

Total granted

$3.8M
$310k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
-30%

Still filing today

88%
63%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 73% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $394k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’20’21’22’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’20’21’22’24
Community ImprovementHousing & ShelterHuman ServicesPhilanthropySocial ScienceOther
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

  • CH
    COLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    7× · 2017–2024 · $584k · revenue +110%
  • WH
    Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation
    7× · 2017–2024 · $425k · revenue +56%
  • OT
    OVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY HOUSING
    7× · 2017–2024 · $386k · revenue +123%

Funded once

  • PH
    PRICE HILL WILL
    one grant, 2017 · $81k
  • OT
    OVER THE RHINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    one grant, 2022 · $75k · revenue -57%
  • CR
    CORNERSTONE RENTER EQUITY INC
    one grant, 2018 · $45k · revenue -39%
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
City Heights Community Development Corporation

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.

Community Improvement
2
East Dayton Neighborhood Development Corporation

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…

Housing & Shelter
3
The Midtown Community Development Foundation
Philanthropy
4
West Side Clt

Create permanently affordable housing with community-centered development in West Charlotte and beyond

Housing & Shelter
5
Homesteading and Urban Redevelopment Corporation

To rehabilitation blighted properties for potential home ownership by low income families.

Housing & Shelter
6
Mount Washington Community Development Corporation

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,…

Community Improvement
7
Charleston Redevelopment Corporation

To facilitate, develop, and advocate for neighborhood revitalization, affordable housing construction, preservation and economic development in Charleston County.

Community Improvement
8
Central Ohio Community Improvement

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…

Community Improvement
9
Community Housing Council
Housing & Shelter
10
Amani Christian Comm Dev Corp

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…

Philanthropy
11
Village Communities Development Ctr
International
12
Pittsburgh Housing Development Corp

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…

Housing & Shelter
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cincinnati Development Fund; 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.
04the grantee network

28 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. 28 of the 31 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.

7
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
10
Early backer (in before they grew)
27/28
Grantees still filing
16/28
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

COLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $584,446 · Community ImprovementCOLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPO…Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation: $424,736 · Community ImprovementWalnut Hills Redevelopment FoundationCINCINNATI NORTHSIDE COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $354,396 · Community ImprovementCINCINNATI NORTHSIDE COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPME…Avondale Development Corporation: $163,866 · Community ImprovementAvondale Development CorporationCLIFTON HEIGHTS COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $133,014 · Community ImprovementCLIFTON HEIGHTS COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CO…Kennedy Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation: $107,142 · Community ImprovementKennedy Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Co…Mt Airy Community Urban Redevelopment Enterprise: $68,083 · Community Improvement+2 more: $111,226 · Community Improvement+2 moreOVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY HOUSING: $385,982 · Housing & ShelterOVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY H…PRICE HILL WILL: $380,433 · Housing & ShelterPRICE HILL WILLCINCINNATI DEVELOPMENT FUND: $286,700 · Housing & ShelterCINCINNATI DEVELOPMENT FUN…WORKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS: $360,638 · OtherWORKING IN NEIGHBORHOODSCAMP WASHINGTON URBAN REVITALIZATION CORPORATION -CWURC-: $212,240 · OtherCAMP WASHINGTON URBAN REV…PRICE HILL WILL: $81,473 · OtherPRICE HILL WILLOVER THE RHINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $75,000 · OtherOVER THE RHINE CHAMBER OF…CORNERSTONE RENTER EQUITY INC: $44,682 · OtherMT WASHINGTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $42,560 · OtherCAMP WASHINGTON COMMUNITY BOARD: $42,494 · OtherUrban Policy Innovations LLC: $35,826 · Other+7 more: $111,349 · Other+7 moreMadisonville Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation: $323,405 · PhilanthropySEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES INC: $167,157 · Human ServicesCommunity Matters Cincinnati Inc: $30,000 · Human ServicesTHE ALPAUGH FAMILY ECONOMICS CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH: $10,000 · Social Science
Community Improvement$1,946,909Housing & Shelter$1,053,115Other$1,006,262Philanthropy$323,405Human Services$197,157Social Science$10,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCOLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $584,446 over 7y, 11% of budgetWalnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation: $424,736 over 7y, 8.8% of budgetOVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY HOUSING: $385,982 over 7y, 1.1% of budgetPRICE HILL WILL: $380,433 over 6y, 5.2% of budgetWORKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS: $360,638 over 6y, 7.4% of budgetCINCINNATI NORTHSIDE COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $354,396 over 7y, 70% of budgetMadisonville Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation: $323,405 over 7y, 37% of budgetCINCINNATI DEVELOPMENT FUND: $286,700 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetCAMP WASHINGTON URBAN REVITALIZATION CORPORATION -CWURC-: $212,240 over 6y, 20% of budgetSEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES INC: $167,157 over 5y, 5.4% of budgetAvondale Development Corporation: $163,866 over 6y, 6.8% of budgetCLIFTON HEIGHTS COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $133,014 over 5y, 3.3% of budgetKennedy Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation: $107,142 over 7y, 57% of budgetOVER THE RHINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $75,000 over 1y, 24% of budgetMt Airy Community Urban Redevelopment Enterprise: $68,083 over 4y, 38% of budgetWestwood Works Inc: $58,100 over 4y, 23% of budgetMt Auburn CDC: $53,126 over 4y, 28% of budgetCORNERSTONE RENTER EQUITY INC: $44,682 over 1y, 2.5% of budgetCommunity Matters Cincinnati Inc: $30,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetVILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $19,500 over 1y, 57% of budgetClifton Business & Professional Ass: $14,615 over 2y, 14% of budgetTHE WESTWOOD COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $14,000 over 1y, 28% of budgetBOND HILL ROSELAWN COLLABORATIVE: $13,333 over 2y, 4.5% of budgetTHE ALPAUGH FAMILY ECONOMICS CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH: $10,000 over 2y, 0.5% 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.

The Greater Cincinnat…Carol Ann and Ralph V…Keep Cincinnati Beaut…United Way of Greater…Interact for HealthOhio Capital Impact C…Ohio Community Develo…Duke Energy FoundationFirst Financial Found…George & Margaret McL…Ed & Joann Hubert Fam…Cincinnati Institute …
The Greater Cincinnati FoundationOH36.4× affinity18 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Homebase Cincinnati funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Homebase Cincinnati. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    13report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
    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 31 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 Homebase Cincinnati’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