· Public charity
Jobsohio
To promote economic development, job creation, job retention, job training, workforce development, and the retention of current and recruitment of new business to ohio.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2025
- Under $10k3 grants · $16k
- $10k–50k106 grants · $2.7M
- $50k–250k167 grants · $17M
- $250k+101 grants · $154M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA LLC | $32,033,335 |
| THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION | $23,149,275 |
| THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY | $7,500,000 |
| MEDPACE INC | $7,449,234 |
| AER LINGUS LIMITED | $6,280,101 |
| FIRST SOLAR INC | $3,850,000 |
| SCHAEFFLER TRANSMISSION LLC | $3,547,404 |
| THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY | $3,442,022 |
| WORLDPAY LLC | $3,000,000 |
| METALLUS INC | $2,500,000 |
| SHEETZ DISTRIBUTION SERVICES | $2,000,000 |
| CANON HEALTHCARE USA INC | $2,000,000 |
| GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION | $1,750,000 |
| 305 PROSPERITY PARKWAY LLC | $1,600,000 |
| ARDAGH METAL BEVERAGE USA INC | $1,500,000 |
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 (FY18–24, $650k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-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.
Which US states your grants reach
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 +38% since the first grant, against +31% for the ones you funded once.
387 repeat relationships — 100 still active in FY2025, 287 since wound down; 277 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (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 FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $59M 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
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY3× · 2021–2024 · $15M · revenue +34%- CHCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER2× · 2020–2022 · $13M · revenue +36%
- TRTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC3× · 2020–2022 · $9.0M · revenue +110%
Funded once
- BOBECHTEL OIL GAS AND CHEMICALS INCone grant, 2020 · $20M
- FGFirstEnergy Generation LLCone grant, 2017 · $12M
- NPNESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANYone grant, 2021 · $6.0M
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.
To harness the collective expertise of ohio's ceos to advocate for policies that improve ohio's economic competitiveness.
As the state's leading business advocate and resource, the ohio chamber of commerce aggressively champions free enterprise, economic competitiveness and growth for the benefit of all ohioans.
To promote economic development, job creation, job retention, job training, workforce development, and the retention of current and recruitment of new business to ohio.
The chamber is a member association designed to be the leading advocate for the business community of the greater dayton region. its mission is to work shoulder to shoulder with businesses to help them succeed.
To grow the vibrancy and economic prosperity of the cincinnati region.
To develop and promote economic development, talent initiatives and the unique offerings in the cincinnati region.
Provide comprehensive services that benefit the financial institution industry in ohio.
Central indiana corporate partnership (cicp) is an alliance of indiana's business and research university leaders coming together to foster long-term prosperity for the region. cicp's mission is to transform the economy of indiana in order…
The corporation is formed and organized exclusively for the charitable purpose of advancing, encouraging and promoting the industrial, economic, commercial and civil development of an area to serve as a research park for the common benefit…
Advancing a thriving central ohio commmunity by serving as a catalyst for all businesses to grow and flourish. our mission pillars are connections, government relations, strategic business solutions and talent/workforce.
Align the life sciences ecosystem in the state of ohio, building collaborative partnerships, and advocating for policies and funding that will help to accelerate life science priorities and drive sustainable economic growth.
To coordinate and promote economic development on a county wide basis among all of the political subdivisions of portage county, ohio.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Columbus Downtown Development Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Ohio Business Leadership Network. 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 24 years old; the field is 19. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 18% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 11% 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.
37 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. 37 of the 1,683 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
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
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.
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: Westerville Industry and Commerce Corpor · Greater Akron Chamber · Spencer Educational Foundation Inc · West Virginia University Research Corporation · Mdrc · The Cleveland Clinic Foundation · Brown University · American Association of Community Colleges · The Cleveland Clinic Foundation Group Return · Carnegie Mellon University · Ascendium Education Solutions Inc · University of Pittsburgh
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 Jobsohio 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.