Skip to content

· Public charity

Ohio Valley Conference Inc

Provide opportunity for athletics competition.

$10M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
6
States reached
$236k
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.

Recreation & Sports$18MEducation$139k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $1,688,876, the rows itemized in this filing. The $10,487,491 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $8,798,615 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.
$196,468
Median grant
6
States reached
$5.7M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY$236,468
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARD$236,468
TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY$196,468
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT MARTIN$196,468
EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY$196,468
MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY$196,468
SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY$196,468
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA$58,400
WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY$58,400
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE RO$58,400
LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY$58,400
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 (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 99% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY: $426k → 19%SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $367k → 14%BELMONT UNIVERSITY: $293k → 14%TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $322k → 19%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARD: $272k → 12%EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $401k → 18%EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY: $362k → 16%MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY: $427k → 19%MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: $292k → 21%JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY: $224k → 19%SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $288k → 14%BELMONT UNIVERSITY: $241k → 14%TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $288k → 19%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARD: $252k → 12%EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $252k → 18%EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY: $136k → 16%MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY: $241k → 19%MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: $259k → 21%SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $252k → 14%BELMONT UNIVERSITY: $181k → 14%TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $252k → 19%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARD: $248k → 12%EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $248k → 18%MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY: $171k → 19%MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: $250k → 21%SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $248k → 14%TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $248k → 19%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARD: $248k → 12%EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $248k → 18%MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY: $130k → 19%MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: $248k → 21%SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $210k → 14%TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $236k → 19%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARD: $236k → 12%EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $210k → 18%MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: $248k → 21%SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $196k → 14%TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY: $210k → 19%SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARD: $210k → 12%EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: $196k → 18%MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: $196k → 21%SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $168k → 14%TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $274k → 14%TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $252k → 14%TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $248k → 14%TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $248k → 14%TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $210k → 14%TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY: $196k → 14%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.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$18M · 16 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

16 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

16
0

Total granted

$18M
$0

Still filing today

13%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

  • SM
    SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.9M
  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.9M
  • TT
    Tennessee Technological University
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.9M

Funded once

    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

    2 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. 2 of the 16 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)
    2/2
    Grantees still filing
    2/2
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY: $1,913,691 · OtherSOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITYTHE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE: $1,896,776 · OtherTHE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEETennessee Technological University: $1,854,398 · OtherTennessee Technological UniversityEastern Illinois Universit: $1,842,545 · OtherEastern Illinois UniversitMOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY: $1,765,644 · OtherMOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITYSOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY- CARBONDALE: $1,760,726 · OtherSOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY- CARBONDALETennessee State University: $1,731,925 · OtherTennessee State UniversityMURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY: $1,130,618 · OtherMURRAY STATE UNIVERSITYAUSTIN PEAY STATE UNIVERSITY: $883,186 · OtherJACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY: $845,011 · OtherEASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY: $672,546 · Other+3 more: $574,200 · OtherBelmont University: $983,761 · EducationLINDENWOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM: $217,400 · Education
    Other$16,871,266Education$1,201,161

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

    25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetBelmont University: $983,761 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetLINDENWOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM: $217,400 over 3y, 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.

    • Who funds Belmont University ↗
    • Who funds LINDENWOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM ↗

    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.

    National Collegiate Athletic AssociationIN32.2× affinity13 shared granteesties to 7 of 7Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: National Collegiate Athletic Association · Folds of Honor Foundation · Tulsa Community Foundation · National Writing Project Corporation · American Chemical Society · Corporation for Public Broadcasting · The Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges · Midway USA Foundation Inc

    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 Ohio Valley Conference Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ohio Valley Conference Inc. 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%6%13%19%25%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 · 0–25%
      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 16 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 Ohio Valley Conference’s filings →

      More from the funding graph