Skip to content
Ontario Community Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Ontario Community Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$174k
Granted FY2025still arriving
23
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$15k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0192% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Human Services$461kHealth$263kHousing & Shelter$168kYouth Development$76kEducation$68kPublic Safety & Disaster$60kArts & Culture$31kFood & Nutrition$23kOther$0
02FY2025 · 23 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k18 grants · $116k
  • $10k–50k5 grants · $58k
$7,500
Median grant
1
States reached
$3.9M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
Childrens Fund$15,000
House of Ruth$12,500
Aging Next$10,000
Casa Colina$10,000
Adonai$10,000
Crossroads Inc$8,000
Megans Wings Inc$8,000
Warrior for Children$8,000
Project One Cause$7,500
Assistance League Foothill$7,500
Service Center for Independent Life$7,500
Foothill Family Shelter$7,500
Inland Valley Hope Partners$7,500
Anthesis$7,500
OPARC$7,500
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 (FY17–25, $396k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 99% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $5k → 10%Childrens Fund: $15k → 14%HOUSE OF RUTH: $30k → 14%HOUSE OF RUTH: $20k → 14%Childrens Fund: $10k → 14%HOUSE OF RUTH: $18k → 14%House of Ruth: $15k → 14%AGING NEXT: $15k → 14%AGING NEXT: $15k → 14%Warrior for Children: $16k → 14%House of Ruth: $13k → 14%OPARC: $10k → 14%Aging Next: $10k → 14%Aging Next: $10k → 14%SHOES THAT FIT: $10k → 14%House of Ruth: $10k → 14%Warrior for Children: $10k → 14%Aging Next: $10k → 14%Warrior for Children: $8k → 14%COMMUNITY SENIOR SERVICES: $10k → 14%Warrior for Children: $8k → 14%Service Center for Independent Life: $8k → 14%OPARC: $8k → 14%Shoes That Fit: $5k → 14%SHOES THAT FIT: $5k → 14%Shoes That Fit: $5k → 14%SHOES THAT FIT: $5k → 14%SHOES THAT FIT: $5k → 14%SALEM CHRISTIAN HOMES: $10k → 14%OPARC: $10k → 14%OPARC: $9k → 14%OPARC: $5k → 14%American Red Cross: $10k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $10k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $10k → 14%AMERICAN RED CROSS: $8k → 14%American Red Cross: $8k → 14%American Red Cross: $5k → 14%American Red Cross: $5k → 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.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 26 repeat orgs$178k to everyone else

26 repeat relationships: 16 still active in FY2025, 10 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

26
19

Total granted

$1.1M
$133k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%
+93%

Still filing today

54%
21%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 74% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $45k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthYouth DevelopmentPhilanthropyEducationFood & NutritionOther
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

  • FF
    FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER INC
    8× · 2017–2025 · $107k · revenue +29%
  • HOUSE OF RUTH INC
    6× · 2018–2025 · $105k · revenue +44%
  • AI
    AGINGNEXT INC
    6× · 2017–2025 · $70k · revenue +173%

Funded once

  • OR
    ONTARIO ROTARY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2021 · $20k
  • UC
    UPLAND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP YOUTH
    one grant, 2017 · $12k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $10k
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
Domestic Violence Intervention Services

See schedule oadvancing physical and emotional safety by reducing the impact and occurrence of sexual and domestic violence, human trafficking and stalking through inclusive intervention and prevention services for children, youth, and…

Human Services
2
New Alternatives Inc

New alternatives, inc. is committed to providing abused and negelected youth with hope and opportunities through a comprehensive array of social, residential and mental health services that we provide in san diego and orange county.

—
3
Chances & Changes Inc

To operate residential and non-residential programs for victims of domestic violence.

—
4
Serra Residential Center Inc

To provide dignity, respect and choice for persons with developmental disabilities

—
5
Familylinks Inc

Familylinks is one of the pittsburgh area's largest and most comprehensive human service providers. serving the most vulnerable members of our community, familylinks provides services in mental health, substance use, service coordination,…

Human Services
6
Pathway Family Services Inc

None

Human Services
7
Residential Services Inc

Residential Services, Inc. provides living options and related supports to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities of all ages.

Health
8
Children's Center

Children's center serves children, youth and families through comprehensive mental health services.

—
9
Family Care Network Inc

The mission of the Family Care Network is to enhance the wellbeing of children, adults, and families in partnership with our community.

—
10
Family and Children's Service Inc of Monmouth County

Family and children's services provides compassionate care, intervention and education to support people during challenging times in their lives.

Human Services
11
Mary's Shelter

Believing in the value of every life, mary's path empowers vulnerable teen mothers in foster care and their babies to create lives of dignity, hope and self-sufficiency.

Human Services
12
Innovative Services Inc

Innovative services, inc. (isi) cares for those with disabilities, helping them lead fulfilling lives with maximum independence. innovative's vision is to be the most trusted care provider for people with disabilities in wisconsin.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Project Sister Family Services; the most unlike its peers is Youth Mentoring Action 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

20 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. 20 of the 52 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)
20/20
Grantees still filing
15/20
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER INC: $107,000 · OtherFOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER INCIndividual grant recipient: $65,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientANTHESIS: $52,500 · OtherANTHESISINLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHURCHES: $45,000 · OtherINLAND VALLEY COUNCIL OF CHURCHESCLASP: $36,000 · OtherVNA HOSPICE PALLIATIVE CARE: $35,000 · OtherLMWS INC: $32,500 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $32,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherPROJECT SISTER: $28,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $25,500 · Other+24 more: $208,400 · Other+24 moreHOUSE OF RUTH INC: $105,000 · Human ServicesHOUSE OF RUTH INCAGINGNEXT INC: $70,000 · Human ServicesAGINGNEXT INCAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $60,000 · Human ServicesAmerican National Red Cross & Its C…WARRIOR FOR CHILDREN: $42,000 · Human ServicesWARRIOR FOR CHILDRENOPARC: $41,500 · Human ServicesOPARCSHOES THAT FIT: $35,000 · Human ServicesSHOES THAT FITCHILDREN'S FUND INC: $25,000 · Human ServicesCHILDREN'S FUND INC+2 more: $17,500 · Human ServicesMEGAN'S WINGS INC: $88,000 · Youth DevelopmentCLAREMONT AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS INC: $8,000 · Youth DevelopmentCROSSROADS INC: $28,000 · HealthCASA COLINA INC: $25,000 · HealthDIGNITY GROUP: $2,000 · HealthINLAND EMPIRE UNITED WAY: $12,500 · PhilanthropyADONAI: $10,000 · Food & NutritionYOUTH MENTORING ACTION NETWORK: $2,500 · Education
Other$696,900Human Services$396,000Youth Development$96,000Health$55,000Philanthropy$12,500Food & Nutrition$10,000Education$2,500

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

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetFOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER INC: $107,000 over 8y, 1.5% of budgetHOUSE OF RUTH INC: $105,000 over 6y, 0.8% of budgetMEGAN'S WINGS INC: $88,000 over 6y, 6.0% of budgetAGINGNEXT INC: $70,000 over 6y, 1.6% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $60,000 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetWARRIOR FOR CHILDREN: $42,000 over 4y, 1.2% of budgetOPARC: $41,500 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetSHOES THAT FIT: $35,000 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetLMWS INC: $32,500 over 4y, 3.3% of budgetCROSSROADS INC: $28,000 over 3y, 1.3% of budgetCASA COLINA INC: $25,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetCHILDREN'S FUND INC: $25,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetPROJECT SISTER FAMILY SERVICES: $15,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetINLAND EMPIRE UNITED WAY: $12,500 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSALEM CHRISTIAN HOMES INC: $10,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetADONAI: $10,000 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetCLAREMONT AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS INC: $8,000 over 1y, 4.3% of budgetService Center for Independent Life: $7,500 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetDIGNITY GROUP: $2,000 over 1y, 2.0% 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 FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER INC ↗
  • Who funds HOUSE OF RUTH INC ↗
  • Who funds MEGAN'S WINGS INC ↗
  • Who funds AGINGNEXT INC ↗
  • Who funds American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches ↗
  • Who funds WARRIOR FOR CHILDREN ↗
  • Who funds OPARC ↗
  • Who funds SHOES THAT FIT ↗
  • Who funds LMWS INC ↗
  • Who funds CROSSROADS INC ↗
  • Who funds CASA COLINA INC ↗
  • Who funds CHILDREN'S FUND INC ↗
  • Who funds PROJECT SISTER FAMILY SERVICES ↗
  • Who funds INLAND EMPIRE UNITED WAY ↗
  • Who funds SALEM CHRISTIAN HOMES INC ↗
  • Who funds ADONAI ↗
  • Who funds CLAREMONT AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS INC ↗
  • Who funds Service Center for Independent Life ↗

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.

James L White Foundat…Inland Empire Communi…The Rose Hills Founda…Weingart FoundationKaiser Foundation Hos…Price Foundation IncThe Rauch Family Foun…Majestic Realty Found…John P Previti Memori…Inland Empire United …Sisters of St Joseph …In-N-Out Burgers Foun…
James L White FoundationCA26.4× affinity10 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: James L White Foundation · Inland Empire Community Foundation · The Rose Hills Foundation · Weingart Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · Price Foundation Inc · The Rauch Family Foundation · Majestic Realty Foundation · John P Previti Memorial Foundation · Inland Empire United Way · Sisters of St Joseph Healthcare Foundation · In-N-Out Burgers 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 Ontario Community Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Ontario Community Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%10%20%30%40%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    7report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
    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 Ontario Community Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Ontario Community 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 52 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 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Ontario’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