Skip to content

· 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.

$152M
Granted FY2025still arriving
377
Grants FY2025still arriving
27
States reached
$32M
Largest
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.

Community Improvement$1.3BHealth$13MScience & Tech$975kEmployment$884kEnvironment$500kPublic Safety & Disaster$125k
02FY2025 · 377 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $16k
  • $10k–50k106 grants · $2.7M
  • $50k–250k167 grants · $17M
  • $250k+101 grants · $154M
$75,000
Median grant
27
States reached
$1.4B
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
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
GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY$1,500,000
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 (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 its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%GLOBAL CLEVELAND: $200k → 17%GLOBAL CLEVELAND: $150k → 17%GLOBAL CLEVELAND: $150k → 17%Global Cleveland: $150k → 17%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.

Which US states its grants reach

NH
WA
ID
MN
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
UT
CO
MO
KY
WV
VA
MD
AZ
TN
NC
SC
DC
LA
MS
AL
GA
TX
FL
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.

74%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$955M · 387 repeat orgs$343M to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +38% since the first grant, against +35% for those 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

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

387
1019

Total granted

$955M
$284M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+38%
+35%

Still filing today

4%
2%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 66% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $59M went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Community ImprovementEducationHealthScience & TechPublic BenefitEmploymentOther
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

  • CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
    3× · 2021–2024 · $15M · revenue +34%
  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
    2× · 2020–2022 · $13M · revenue +36%
  • TR
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC
    3× · 2020–2022 · $9.0M · revenue +110%

Funded once

  • BO
    BECHTEL OIL GAS AND CHEMICALS INC
    one grant, 2020 · $20M
  • FG
    FirstEnergy Generation LLC
    one grant, 2017 · $12M
  • NP
    NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY
    one grant, 2021 · $6.0M
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
Ohio Business Roundtable

To harness the collective expertise of ohio's ceos to advocate for policies that improve ohio's economic competitiveness.

—
2
Ohio Chamber of Commerce

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.

—
3
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.

Employment
4
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce

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.

—
5
Cincinnati Usa Regional Chamber

To grow the vibrancy and economic prosperity of the cincinnati region.

—
6
Cincinnati Usa Regional Chamber Foundation

To develop and promote economic development, talent initiatives and the unique offerings in the cincinnati region.

Community Improvement
7
Ohio Bankers League

Provide comprehensive services that benefit the financial institution industry in ohio.

Community Improvement
8
Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Inc

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…

Community Improvement
9
Science and Technology Campus Corp

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…

Education
10
Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce

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.

—
11
Ohio Life Sciences Association

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.

Community Improvement
12
Portage Development Board

To coordinate and promote economic development on a county wide basis among all of the political subdivisions of portage county, ohio.

Public Benefit
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Columbus Downtown Development Corporation; 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.
04the grantee network

37 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. 37 of the 1,683 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)
13
Early backer (in before they grew)
35/37
Grantees still filing
27/37
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INTEL CORPORATION: $125,415,416 · OtherINTEL CORPORATIONULTIUM CELLS LLC: $50,000,000 · OtherULTIUM CELLS LLCTHE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: $45,432,587 · OtherHONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA LLC: $42,733,335 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $37,500,000 · OtherTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: $32,000,000 · Other+183 more: $539,881,339 · Other+183 moreTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION: $45,000,000 · HealthTHE CLEVE…UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $17,500,000 · HealthUNIVERSIT…CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $12,500,000 · HealthCHILDREN'…+2 more: $4,300,000 · Health+2 moreCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $15,000,000 · EducationUniversity of Dayton: $1,660,735 · EducationTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC: $9,000,000 · Public BenefitAdams County Community Improvement: $3,707,502 · Community ImprovementJACKSON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $1,544,060 · Community ImprovementonMain Inc: $1,389,780 · Community Improvement
Other$872,962,677Health$79,300,000Education$16,660,735Public Benefit$9,000,000Community Improvement$6,641,342

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

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

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetTHE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION: $45,000,000 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetUNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $17,500,000 over 4y, 0.6% of budgetCASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY: $15,000,000 over 3y, 0.4% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $12,500,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC: $9,000,000 over 3y, 15% of budgetLAWRENCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $7,338,676 over 6y, 65% of budgetCareSource: $2,300,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetPROMEDICA HEALTH SYSTEM INC: $2,000,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetUniversity of Dayton: $1,660,735 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetJACKSON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP: $1,544,060 over 4y, 78% of budgetonMain Inc: $1,389,780 over 2y, 46% 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 THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM INC ↗
  • Who funds CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC ↗
  • Who funds LAWRENCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗

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.

Westerville Industry and Commerce CorporOH14.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 0 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

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

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 Jobsohio funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Jobsohio. 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%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    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 1683 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 Jobsohio’s filings →

    More from the funding graph