Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Kuhn Family Foundation

Its FY2023 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$1.4M
Granted FY2023
5
Grants FY2023
2
States reached
$533k
Largest
01What it funds
0195% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Health$1.3MPhilanthropy$898kArts & Culture$80kEducation$42kAnimals$20kCrime & Legal$3kOther$0
02FY2023 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2023

  • Under $10k2 grants · $6k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.4M
$445,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS$533,235
THE KUHN FAMILY FOUNDATION DONOR ADVISED FUND 1$445,000
THE KUHN FAMILY FOUNDATION DONOR ADVISED FUND 2$445,000
PLAYHOUSE SQUARE$5,000
SHADOW WOOD CHARITABLE FOUNDATION$1,100
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 (FY22–22, $2k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%HOSPICE OF DAYTON: $100 → 14%GATHERING PLACE: $2k → 17%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.

58%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.4M · 10 repeat orgs$998k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +13% since the first grant, against +12% for those funded once.

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2023, 7 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
10

Total granted

$1.4M
$108k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+13%
+12%

Still filing today

40%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 38% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $890k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
Human ServicesCrime & LegalArts & CulturePhilanthropyEducationAnimalsOther
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

  • PF
    PROFESSIONAL FLAIR INC
    5× · 2018–2022 · $50k · revenue +9%
  • CZ
    CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY
    2× · 2021–2022 · $20k · revenue +13%
  • SW
    SHADOW WOOD CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC
    6× · 2018–2023 · $8k · revenue +180%

Funded once

  • UH
    UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CASE WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER
    one grant, 2017 · $62k
  • FO
    FRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS
    one grant, 2022 · $35k · revenue -60%
  • CH
    CONCORD HISTORICAL SOCIETY
    one grant, 2022 · $3k · revenue -57%
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
Hospice of Central Ohio

Patients of hospice of central ohio receive compassionate, individualized end-of-life care. their desires guide the physical, emotional, and spiritual care support we provide. members of our community, patient's families, children, and…

—
2
Hospice of Fayette County Inc

Provide home or nursing home care for terminally ill patients and their families. provided education & support to fayette county and surrounding communities about qualify of life issues.

—
3
Cincinnati Zoo Foundation Inc

Perform fundraising functions, provide financial support, carryout the purpose and otherwise operating for the benefit of the zoological society of cincinnati.

Animals
4
Hospice of Miami County Inc

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

—
5
Philanthropy Ohio

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

Philanthropy
6
Cincinnati Preservation Association

To empower and educate people to value, preserve and save greater cincinnati's historic buildings, communities, landscapes and stories.

Arts & Culture
7
Foundation for Hospice of Central Ohio

The foundation for hospice of central ohio will ensure continuation of hospice services and will fund development of programs which foster innnovation in hospice and palliative medicine.

—
8
Lifecare Hospice

The mission of hospice is to provide medical care, nursing care, pain relief, and emotional and spiritual support services to terminally ill patients and their families.

—
9
The Cleveland Foundation

Enhance the lives of all residents of greater cleveland, now and for generations to come, by working together with our donors to build community endowment, address needs through grantmaking, and provide leadership on key community issues.

Philanthropy
10
Ohio's Hospice Foundation

Ohio's hospice foundation is a supportive foundation of its sole member, ohio's hospice inc. and its supported organizations. the foundation provides counsel and assistance for ohio's hospice and its supported organizations by helping to…

Health
11
Ohio Center for Hope

To promote mental health research in medical developments

Health
12
Alois Alzheimer Foundation

Partnering with like-minded individuals and organizations to encourage responsible research, provide leading education and increase the awareness of alzheimer's disease and related dementia

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Cleveland Zoological Society; the most unlike its peers is Flashes of Hope. 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

10 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. 10 of the 22 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/10
Grantees still filing
6/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: $1,042,645 · OtherUNIVERSITY HOSPITALSTHE KUHN FAMILY FOUNDATION DONOR ADVISED FUND 2: $445,000 · OtherTHE KUHN FAMILY FOUNDATION DONOR ADVISED FUND 2THE KUHN FAMILY FOUNDATION DONOR ADVISED FUND 1: $445,000 · OtherTHE KUHN FAMILY FOUNDATION DONOR ADVISED FUND 1FRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH CHARTE: $100,000 · Other+11 more: $259,030 · Other+11 moreFRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS: $35,000 · EducationCLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $20,000 · AnimalsSHADOW WOOD CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $7,600 · PhilanthropyHOPE FOR KIDS GEAUGA: $2,500 · Crime & LegalTHE GATHERING PLACE: $1,500 · Human ServicesHOSPICE OF DAYTON INC: $100 · Human ServicesTHE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF CLEVELAND: $750 · Arts & Culture
Other$2,291,675Education$35,000Animals$20,000Philanthropy$7,600Crime & Legal$2,500Human Services$1,600Arts & Culture$750

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPROFESSIONAL FLAIR INC: $50,000 over 5y, 2.3% of budgetFRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS: $35,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetCLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY: $20,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSHADOW WOOD CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC: $7,600 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetCONCORD HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $2,880 over 1y, 1.6% of budgetHOPE FOR KIDS GEAUGA: $2,500 over 5y, 1.3% of budgetTHE GATHERING PLACE: $1,500 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetFLASHES OF HOPE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF CLEVELAND: $750 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHOSPICE OF DAYTON INC: $100 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.

  • Who funds PROFESSIONAL FLAIR INC ↗
  • Who funds FRIENDS OF BREAKTHROUGH SCHOOLS ↗
  • Who funds CLEVELAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds SHADOW WOOD CHARITABLE FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CONCORD HISTORICAL SOCIETY ↗
  • Who funds HOPE FOR KIDS GEAUGA ↗
  • Who funds THE GATHERING PLACE ↗
  • Who funds FLASHES OF HOPE ↗
  • Who funds THE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF CLEVELAND ↗
  • Who funds HOSPICE OF DAYTON INC ↗

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.

Donor Advised Charitable Giving IncCO6.5× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · 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 Kuhn Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Kuhn Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%4%8%11%15%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–15%
    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 22 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 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Kuhn Family’s filings →

    More from the funding graph