Skip to content
Keep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Keep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc

Keep Cincinnati Beautiful is an award-winning not for profit organization educating and encouraging individuals to take greater responsibility for improving their community environments.

$448k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$47k
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, FY2024 to 2025.

Environment$384kArts & Culture$128kHousing & Shelter$58kYouth Development$54kCommunity Improvement$33kReligion$31kHuman Services$25kFood & Nutrition$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 14 grants below total $277,728, the rows itemized in this filing. The $448,171 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $170,443 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 · FY2025

  • Under $10k3 grants · $21k
  • $10k–50k11 grants · $257k
$20,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.5M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Robert O'Neal Multicultural Arts Center$46,981
Madisonville Mission Ministries$33,850
Young CEO Program$27,000
Peaslee Neighborhood Center$24,300
The Being Project$23,910
Sweet Sistah Splash$21,584
ArtWorks$20,000
College Hill Community Urban Development Corporation$17,300
Cincinnati Community Tool Bank$16,455
Eye of the Artists Foundation$13,000
Queen City Korfball$12,283
BLOC Ministries Inc$9,719
Price Hill Will$5,900
Elevating Wellness$5,446
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 (FY24–25, $92k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Madisonville Mission Ministries: $34k → 16%MADISONVILLE MISSION MINISTRIES: $14k → 16%SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES: $7k → 16%SANTA MARIA COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $25k → 16%COMMUNITY MATTERS CINCINNATI INC: $8k → 16%ISAIAH 55 INC: $5k → 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.

35%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$254k · 6 repeat orgs$465k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
26

Total granted

$254k
$314k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

0%
0%

Still filing today

83%
58%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 46% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $151k went to new ones.

50%100%’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’24’25
Arts & CultureHuman ServicesCommunity ImprovementHousing & ShelterYouth DevelopmentReligionOther
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

  • RO
    Robert Oneal Multicultural Arts Center
    2× · 2024–2025 · $92k · revenue 0%
  • MM
    MADISONVILLE MISSION MINISTRIES
    2× · 2024–2025 · $48k
  • BM
    BLOC MINISTRIES INC
    2× · 2024–2025 · $31k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • LP
    LOWER PRICE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE OF BUSINESSES INC
    one grant, 2024 · $50k
  • WS
    WHITNEY STRONG INC
    one grant, 2024 · $30k · revenue 0%
  • SM
    SANTA MARIA COMMUNITY SERVICES INC
    one grant, 2024 · $25k · revenue 0%
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
Walnut Hills Area Council

Support of neighborhood activities in Walnut Hills, Cincinnati.

Community Improvement
2
CncyMade

Cncy Made exists to build and support a vibrant manufacturing sector in the Greater Cincinnati region that sustains companies producing locally-made products, encourages entrepreneurship and innovation and creates employment opportunities…

—
3
Radical Alli Center

The Radical ALLI Center hosts community gatherings to inspire young people to share knowledge, collaborate, and create social good among peers.

Education
4
New City Cleveland

Empowering a neighborhood through programs and services for the Buckeye Woodhill residents.

Community Improvement
5
Flywheel Social Enterprise Hub

Through workshops, training programs and technical assistance, we help social entrepreneurs build ventures that deliver social impact.

Philanthropy
6
Central Ohio Workers Center Inc

The Central Ohio Worker Center is a non-profit organization that educates, empowers, and advocates for and with low-wage and immigrant workers in Central Ohio.

Civil Rights
7
City Club of Cincinnati

Nurture friendships and exchange ideas

—
8
West Price Hill Community Council
Community Improvement
9
Cincinnati Action for Housing Now

Ballot issue political action committee advocating for levy to support the homelessness population in Ohio.

—
10
Cincinnati Northside Community Urban Redevelopment Corporation

Cncurc's mission is to stabilize and revitalize the community by increasing homeownership, eliminating blight, and supporting business development.

Community Improvement
11
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
12
Your Store of the Queen City

Your Store of the Queen Citys mission empowers neighborhood-based entities to expand fresh food access & create community-based jobs by supporting the development & networking of resident- centered, culturally & economically inclusive…

Community Improvement
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Community Matters Cincinnati Inc; the most unlike its peers is Roselawn Community Council. 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

26 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. 26 of the 40 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.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
25/26
Grantees still filing
6/26
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LOWER PRICE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE OF BUSINESSES INC: $49,650 · OtherLOWER PRICE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANC…EYE OF THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION: $28,000 · OtherEYE OF THE ARTISTS FOUNDATIONPeaslee Neighborhood Center Inc: $24,300 · OtherPeaslee Neighborhood Center IncBEING PROJECT: $23,910 · OtherBEING PROJECTBOND HILL COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $19,690 · OtherBOND HILL COMMUNITY COUNCILVILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $19,140 · OtherVILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONCINCINNATI COMMUNITY TOOLBANK: $16,455 · OtherCINCINNATI COMMUNITY TOOLBANKEVANSTON COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $9,344 · OtherEAST WESTWOOD IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED: $8,845 · OtherCLIFTON HTS UNIVERSITY HTS FAIRVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: $8,182 · Other+8 more: $33,316 · Other+8 moreRobert Oneal Multicultural Arts Center: $92,266 · Arts & CultureRobert Oneal Multicultu…SWEET SISTAH SPLASH: $21,584 · Arts & CultureSWEET SISTAH SPLASHART OPPORTUNITIES INC: $20,000 · Arts & CultureART OPPORTUNITIES INCREVOLUTION DANCE: $11,050 · Arts & CultureREVOLUTION DANCE+1 more: $4,646 · Arts & CultureMADISONVILLE MISSION MINISTRIES: $48,087 · Human ServicesMADISONVILLE M…SANTA MARIA COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $24,800 · Human ServicesSANTA MARIA CO…Community Matters Cincinnati Inc: $7,757 · Human ServicesCommunity Matt…SEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES INC: $6,500 · Human ServicesSEVEN HILLS NE…ISAIAH 55 INC: $5,000 · Human ServicesISAIAH 55 INCWHITNEY STRONG INC: $29,644 · Housing & ShelterWHITNEY STR…PRICE HILL WILL: $27,870 · Housing & ShelterPRICE HILL …OVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY HOUSING: $17,921 · Housing & ShelterOVER THE RH…COLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $26,800 · Community ImprovementCOLLEGE H…Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation: $24,800 · Community ImprovementWalnut Hi…Corporation for Findlay Market: $6,388 · Community ImprovementCorporati…ROSELAWN COMMUNITY COUNCIL: $5,340 · Community ImprovementROSELAWN …Young CEO Program SEEWTP: $27,000 · Youth DevelopmentSAVE OUR YOUTH KINGS AND QUEENS: $14,363 · Youth DevelopmentQUEEN CITY KORFBALL: $12,283 · Youth DevelopmentBLOC MINISTRIES INC: $31,325 · ReligionSonLight Power Inc: $12,950 · International
Other$240,832Arts & Culture$149,546Human Services$92,144Housing & Shelter$75,435Community Improvement$63,328Youth Development$53,646Religion$31,325International$12,950

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetRobert Oneal Multicultural Arts Center: $92,266 over 2y, 12% of budgetBLOC MINISTRIES INC: $31,325 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetWHITNEY STRONG INC: $29,644 over 1y, 4.2% of budgetPRICE HILL WILL: $27,870 over 2y, 0.9% of budgetCOLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $26,800 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetSANTA MARIA COMMUNITY SERVICES INC: $24,800 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetWalnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation: $24,800 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetSWEET SISTAH SPLASH: $21,584 over 1y, 18% of budgetVILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: $19,140 over 1y, 9.4% of budgetOVER THE RHINE COMMUNITY HOUSING: $17,921 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetSAVE OUR YOUTH KINGS AND QUEENS: $14,363 over 1y, 17% of budgetSonLight Power Inc: $12,950 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetCommunity Matters Cincinnati Inc: $7,757 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetSEVEN HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES INC: $6,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCorporation for Findlay Market: $6,388 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetISAIAH 55 INC: $5,000 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetWORKING IN NEIGHBORHOODS: $4,900 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWave Pool Corp: $4,646 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetTENDER MERCIES INC: $4,200 over 1y, 0.1% 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…United Way of Greater…Carol Ann and Ralph V…John a Schroth Family…Homebase CincinnatiEd & Joann Hubert Fam…Millstone FundThe Thomas J Emery Me…Interact for HealthGeorge & Margaret McL…Andrew Jergens Founda…Duke Energy Foundation
The Greater Cincinnati FoundationOH50.6× affinity26 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · United Way of Greater Cincinnati · Carol Ann and Ralph V Haile Jr Foundation · John a Schroth Family Char Tr · Homebase Cincinnati · Ed & Joann Hubert Family Foundation Inc · Millstone Fund · The Thomas J Emery Memorial · Interact for Health · George & Margaret McLane Foundation · Andrew Jergens Foundation · Duke Energy 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 Keep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Keep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    12report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    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 40 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 Keep Cincinnati Beautiful’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