Skip to content
Invest in Neighborhoods Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Invest in Neighborhoods Inc

To empower community councils and their resident members, volunteers, and related community organizations to contribute to civic live and advance the quality of life in Cincinnatis neighorboods, by increasing capacities and competencies, assisting with resources, and promoting civic engagement.

$385k
Granted FY2024still arriving
48
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$8k
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, FY2023 to 2024.

Community Improvement$938kPublic Benefit$13k
02FY2024 · 48 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$8,250
Median grant
1
States reached
$153k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
East End Area Council$8,250
Riverside Civic & Welfare Club$8,250
Clifton Town Meeting$8,250
CUF Neighborhood Association$8,250
Sayler Park Village Council$8,250
Oakley Community Council$8,250
Avondale Community Council$8,250
East Price Hill Improvement Association$8,250
California Community Council$8,250
Sedamsville Civic Association$8,250
Evanston Community Council$8,250
Corryville Community Council$8,250
North Fairmount Community Council$8,250
South Cumminsville Community Council$8,250
Linwood Community Council$8,250
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY23–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%East Walnut Hills Assembley: $16k → 16%Mt Adams Civic Association: $13k → 16%Walnut Hills Area Council: $13k → 16%Columbia-Tusculum Community Council: $10k → 16%East Walnut Hills Assembley: $8k → 16%Walnut Hills Area Council: $8k → 16%Clifton Town Meeting: $13k → 16%South Cumminsville Community Council: $13k → 16%Columbia-Tusculum Community Council: $8k → 16%Clifton Town Meeting: $8k → 16%South Cumminsville Community Council: $8k → 16%Mt Adams Civic Association: $8k → 16%Carthage Civic League: $16k → 16%Paddock Hills Assembly: $16k → 16%North Avondale Neighborhood Association: $13k → 16%North Avondale Neighborhood Association: $8k → 16%Carthage Civic League: $8k → 16%Mt Lookout Community Council: $16k → 16%Hyde Park Neighborhood Council: $13k → 16%Riverside Civic & Welfare Club: $16k → 16%East End Area Council: $13k → 16%Riverside Civic & Welfare Club: $8k → 16%South Fairmount Community Council: $10k → 16%CUF Neighborhood Association: $10k → 16%Avondale Community Council: $13k → 16%Spring Grove Village Community Council: $13k → 16%College Hill Forum: $10k → 16%Sedamsville Civic Association: $16k → 16%California Community Council: $16k → 16%Lower Price Hill Community Council: $13k → 16%Mt Washington Community Council: $13k → 16%Hartwell Improvement Association: $16k → 16%East Price Hill Improvement Association: $13k → 16%Roselawn Community Council: $10k → 16%Sayler Park Village Council: $16k → 16%East Westwood Improvement Association: $16k → 16%Westwood Civic Association: $10k → 16%North Fairmount Community Council: $16k → 16%Camp Washington Community Council: $13k → 16%Corryville Community Council: $13k → 16%Northside Community Council: $10k → 16%Oakley Community Council: $16k → 16%Mt Auburn Community Council: $10k → 16%Evanston Community Council: $16k → 16%Linwood Community Council: $10k → 16%Pleasant Ridge Community Council: $10k → 16%Kennedy Heights Community Council: $13k → 16%Pendleton Neighborhood Council: $16k → 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.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$920k · 44 repeat orgs$31k to everyone else

44 repeat relationships: 44 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 4 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

44
4

Total granted

$920k
$31k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
+66%

Still filing today

14%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 92% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $31k went to new ones.

50%100%’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

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

’23’24
Community ImprovementEducationPublic BenefitOther
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

  • ML
    MT LOOKOUT CIVIC CLUB
    3× · 2023–2025 · $23k · revenue +15% · 36% of their budget
  • CT
    CLIFTON TOWN MEETING
    3× · 2023–2025 · $21k · revenue +50%
  • TN
    The Northside Community Council
    3× · 2023–2025 · $16k · revenue +69%

Funded once

  • MA
    MT AIRY TOWN COUNCIL INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $8k
  • FC
    FAY COMMUNITY COUNCIL
    2× · 2024–2025 · $8k
  • WP
    West Price Hill Community Councilgraduated
    2× · 2024–2025 · $7k · revenue +66% · 64% of their budget
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
Community Housing Council
Housing & Shelter
2
Norris Community Residential Council Inc
Human Services
3
Old Louisville Neighborhood Council

To advocate, promote, and protect Old Louisville's historic architecture and streetscapes within a diverse neighborhood of residents and businesses while advancing artistic and cultural events to build community.

—
4
City Club of Cincinnati

Nurture friendships and exchange ideas

—
5
Keep Miles City Beautiful

Community liter control, recycling and beautification

Environment
6
Medina Community Design Committee
Community Improvement
7
Liberty Hill Improvement Council

We are the Neighborhood Associations under the auspices of the City of North Charleston. We offer a place to meet to exchange information, create community engagements projects and propose solutions for the community

Human Services
8
Carrick Community Council

To combat community deterioration

Human Services
9
Morningside Heights Community Coalition

We offer community development programs that are free and open to the public.

Human Services
10
South End Neighborhood Council

We are working together to make the south end better for everyone in the south end with a focus on community gardens, art installments, and outreach

Community Improvement
11
Citizens of the Neighborhood Miller Neighborhood Association

To Maintain and Preserve Commun

Arts & Culture
12
Taking Back Our Neighborhood Together Inc
Crime & Legal
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is East Walnut Hills Assembly; the most unlike its peers is Mt Lookout Civic Club. 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

12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 12 of the 48 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/12
Grantees still filing
4/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

+37 more: $739,144 · Other+37 moreEAST WALNUT HILLS ASSEMBLY: $24,222 · Community ImprovementEAST WALNUT HILLS A…OAKLEY COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $24,222 · Community ImprovementOAKLEY COMMUNITY CO…CLIFTON TOWN MEETING: $20,966 · Community ImprovementCLIFTON TOWN MEETIN…WALNUT HILLS AREA COUNCIL: $20,966 · Community ImprovementWALNUT HILLS AREA C…Columbia Tusculum Community Council: $18,122 · Community ImprovementColumbia Tusculum C…ROSELAWN COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $18,122 · Community ImprovementROSELAWN COMMUNITY …Pleasant Ridge Community Council: $17,247 · Community ImprovementPleasant Ridge Comm…The Northside Community Council: $16,290 · Community ImprovementThe Northside Commu…West Price Hill Community Council: $7,375 · Community ImprovementMT LOOKOUT CIVIC CLUB: $23,347 · EducationAVONDALE COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $20,966 · Public Benefit
Other$739,144Community Improvement$167,532Education$23,347Public Benefit$20,966

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

25%50%75%100%$100kgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetEAST WALNUT HILLS ASSEMBLY: $24,222 over 3y, 10.0% of budgetMT LOOKOUT CIVIC CLUB: $23,347 over 3y, 36% of budgetCLIFTON TOWN MEETING: $20,966 over 3y, 17% of budgetAVONDALE COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $20,966 over 3y, 15% of budgetThe Northside Community Council: $16,290 over 3y, 14% of budgetWest Price Hill Community Council: $7,375 over 2y, 64% 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 EAST WALNUT HILLS ASSEMBLY ↗
  • Who funds OAKLEY COMMUNITY COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds MT LOOKOUT CIVIC CLUB ↗
  • Who funds CLIFTON TOWN MEETING ↗
  • Who funds AVONDALE COMMUNITY COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds MT ADAMS CIVIC ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds WALNUT HILLS AREA COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds Columbia Tusculum Community Council ↗
  • Who funds ROSELAWN COMMUNITY COUNCIL ↗

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.

Keep Cincinnati Beaut…The Greater Cincinnat…Duke Energy FoundationAmazonsmile Foundation
Keep Cincinnati Beautiful IncOH19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 3 of 3Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Keep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc · The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · Duke Energy Foundation · 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 Invest in Neighborhoods Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Invest in Neighborhoods Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 48 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.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2025) is on record and reports $553k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2024, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Invest in Neighborhoods’ 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