Skip to content
The Greg and Alissa Blankenship Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

The Greg and Alissa Blankenship Foundation Inc

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$11k
Granted FY2025still arriving
2
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$10k
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 2025.

Human Services$78kArts & Culture$52kHealth$17kFood & Nutrition$7kPhilanthropy$4kCommunity Improvement$750Animals$500
02FY2025 · 2 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $500
  • $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
$10,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$274k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UVMC FOUNDATION$10,000
MC PAW$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 (FY19–24, $76k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 13%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 13%MIAMI COUNTY YMCA: $25k → 10%MIAMI COUNTY YMCA: $20k → 10%MIAMI COUNTY YMCA: $15k → 10%MIAMI COUNTY YMCA: $10k → 10%MIAMI COUNTY YMCA: $5k → 10%MIAMI COUNTY YMCA: $1k → 10%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.

92%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$141k · 4 repeat orgs$12k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +68% since the first grant, against -3% for those funded once.

4 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

4
7

Total granted

$141k
$12k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+68%
-3%

Still filing today

75%
71%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $500 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
Arts & CultureHuman ServicesPhilanthropyHealthOther
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

  • MC
    Miami County YMCA
    6× · 2019–2024 · $76k · revenue +68%
  • PA
    PIQUA ARTS COUNCIL INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $50k · revenue +574%
  • UF
    UVMC FOUNDATION
    2× · 2024–2025 · $11k · revenue 0%

Funded once

  • PR
    PINK RIBBON GOOD INC
    one grant, 2024 · $5k · revenue 0%
  • SP
    ST PATRICK SOUP KITCHEN
    one grant, 2023 · $3k
  • TD
    THE DAYTON ART INSTITUTE
    one grant, 2019 · $2k · revenue -13%
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
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.

—
2
Miami Valley Hospital Foundation

Enhance the patient and family experience at miami valley hospital by raising community support for cutting-edge programs and services which help build healthy communities.

Health
3
Hospice & Palliative Care of the Ohio Valley Inc

Helping individuals live with dignity through the final stage of life.

Human Services
4
Hospice of Dayton Inc

The hospice of dayton, inc. is committed to making quality hospice care available and accessible to terminally ill persons and their families, regardless of ability to pay, and in a manner consistent with the highest hospice standards. our…

Human Services
5
Philanthropy Ohio

To lead and equip ohio philanthropy to be effective partners for change in our communities.

Philanthropy
6
Atrium Medical Center Foundation

To develop charitable gifts and resources dedicated to building healthier communities in southwest ohio.

Health
7
Cincinnati Usa Regional Chamber

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

—
8
Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce

To solve critical business challenges in order to create vibrant economic opportunities for all in our region.

—
9
Diabetes Partnership of Cleveland

Diabetes partnership of cleveland works to provide relevant and sustainable programming, education, resources and supplies to the community in northeast ohio affected by diabetes.

—
10
Atrium Medical Center

We care. we teach. we innovate. we serve.

Health
11
Pikeville Medical Center Inc

The center's mission is to advance the health and well-being of our region through comprehensive care in a christian environment.

Health
12
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.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Hospice of Miami County Inc; the most unlike its peers is Piqua Arts Council Inc. 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

9 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. 9 of the 13 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)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
3/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Miami County YMCA: $76,250 · Human ServicesMiami County YMCAPIQUA ARTS COUNCIL INC: $50,000 · Arts & CulturePIQUA ARTS COUNCIL INC+1 more: $1,500 · Arts & CultureUVMC FOUNDATION: $11,000 · PhilanthropyUVMC FOUND…THE TROY FOUNDATION: $3,750 · PhilanthropyTHE TROY F…JOHNSTON FARM & INDIAN AGENCY: $4,000 · OtherST PATRICK SOUP KITCHEN: $2,500 · OtherFAMILY ABUSE SHELTER OF MIAMI COUNTY INC: $1,000 · OtherPIQUA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $750 · OtherHOSPICE OF MIAMI COUNTY INC: $500 · OtherMC PAW: $500 · OtherCASAS GAL OF MIAMI COUNTY: $500 · OtherPINK RIBBON GOOD INC: $5,100 · Health
Human Services$76,250Arts & Culture$51,500Philanthropy$14,750Other$9,750Health$5,100

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 budgetMiami County YMCA: $76,250 over 6y, 0.7% of budgetPIQUA ARTS COUNCIL INC: $50,000 over 2y, 7.4% of budgetUVMC FOUNDATION: $11,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetPINK RIBBON GOOD INC: $5,100 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE TROY FOUNDATION: $3,750 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetTHE DAYTON ART INSTITUTE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetFAMILY ABUSE SHELTER OF MIAMI COUNTY INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetPIQUA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: $750 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetHOSPICE OF MIAMI COUNTY INC: $500 over 1y, 0.0% 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.

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.

Upper Valley Medical …The Paul G Duke Found…The Troy FoundationNiels a Lundgard & Ru…Miami Valley HospitalThe Dayton FoundationDayton Foundation Dep…The Blackbaud Giving …Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Upper Valley Medical CenterOH20× affinity7 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Upper Valley Medical Center · The Paul G Duke Foundation · The Troy Foundation · Niels a Lundgard & Ruth Lundgard Fdn · Miami Valley Hospital · The Dayton Foundation · Dayton Foundation Depository · The Blackbaud Giving Fund · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile 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 The Greg and Alissa Blankenship Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Greg and Alissa Blankenship Foundation Inc. 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%5%10%15%20%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 · 0–20%
    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.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to The Greg and Alissa Blankenship Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to The Greg and Alissa Blankenship Foundation Inc 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 13 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 Greg and Alissa Blankenship’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