Skip to content
Local Initiative for Excellence Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Local Initiative for Excellence Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$1.0M
Granted FY2024still arriving
10
Grants FY2024still arriving
5
States reached
$250k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
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.

Health$1.2MEducation$1.0MScience & Tech$650kArts & Culture$405kHuman Services$135k
02FY2024 · 10 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k9 grants · $790k
  • $250k+1 grant · $250k
$135,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$33M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NKU FOUNDATION INC$250,000
PLANNNED PARENTHOOD$135,000
CINCINNATI MUSEUM CENTER$135,000
CINCINNATI PLAYHOUSE IN THE PARK$135,000
CINCINNATI SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA$135,000
SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI$50,000
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL$50,000
CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MED$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA$50,000
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:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 96% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $50k → 16%SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: $150k → 11%CINCINNATI MUSEUM CENTER: $135k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $50k → 8%SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: $150k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $100k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $50k → 8%SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: $100k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $100k → 16%SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: $100k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $51k → 16%SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $50k → 16%SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $50k → 16%SALK INST FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: $50k → 11%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $50k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $50k → 16%UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $50k → 16%CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HSPTL MED CTR: $150k → 16%CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HSPTL MED CTR: $100k → 16%CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSP MED CTR: $100k → 16%CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MED: $50k → 16%CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HSPTL MED CTR: $50k → 16%CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSP MED CTR: $50k → 16%PLANNNED PARENTHOOD: $135k → 16%CINCINNATI PLAYHOUSE IN THE PARK: $135k → 16%CINCINNATI SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA: $135k → 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.

81%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$2.7M · 6 repeat orgs$640k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +53% since the first grant, against +4% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 4 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

6
6

Total granted

$2.7M
$640k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
+4%

Still filing today

50%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $640k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CultureEducationScience & TechHealthOther
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

  • NK
    NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC
    6× · 2018–2024 · $1.0M · revenue +145%
  • TS
    The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
    7× · 2018–2024 · $650k · revenue +27%
  • CH
    CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
    2× · 2017–2018 · $150k · revenue +53%

Funded once

  • CS
    CINCINNATI SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAgraduated
    one grant, 2024 · $135k · revenue +117%
  • CM
    CINCINNATI MUSEUM CENTER
    one grant, 2024 · $135k · revenue +4%
  • CP
    Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park
    one grant, 2024 · $135k · revenue -11%
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
04the grantee network

6 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. 6 of the 12 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)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
6/6
Grantees still filing
5/6
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $501,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATICINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HSPTL MED CTR: $300,000 · OtherCINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HSPTL MED CTRPLANNNED PARENTHOOD: $135,000 · OtherPLANNNED PARENTHOODUNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: $100,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIACINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MED: $50,000 · OtherMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL: $50,000 · OtherNORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $1,035,000 · EducationNORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY FOUND…The Salk Institute for Biological Studies: $650,000 · Science & TechThe Salk Institute fo…CINCINNATI SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA: $135,000 · Arts & CultureCINCINNATI SY…CINCINNATI MUSEUM CENTER: $135,000 · Arts & CultureCINCINNATI MU…Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park: $135,000 · Arts & CultureCincinnati Pl…CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $150,000 · Health
Other$1,136,000Education$1,035,000Science & Tech$650,000Arts & Culture$405,000Health$150,000

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

25%50%75%100%$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC: $1,035,000 over 6y, 2.4% of budgetThe Salk Institute for Biological Studies: $650,000 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $150,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCINCINNATI SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA: $135,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCINCINNATI MUSEUM CENTER: $135,000 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCincinnati Playhouse in the Park: $135,000 over 1y, 0.9% 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 NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds The Salk Institute for Biological Studies ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
  • Who funds CINCINNATI SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ↗
  • Who funds CINCINNATI MUSEUM CENTER ↗
  • Who funds Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Local Initiative for Excellence Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Local Initiative for Excellence Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Local Initiative for Excellence Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Local Initiative for Excellence Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    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 12 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-PF 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 Local Initiative for Excellence’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