Skip to content
The Larosa Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

The Larosa Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$284k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$200k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0194% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2019 to 2025.

Youth Development$318kRecreation & Sports$240kFood & Nutrition$80kEducation$33kReligion$5kHealth$5kPhilanthropy$5kOther$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k7 grants · $24k
  • $10k–50k3 grants · $60k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $200k
$5,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$480k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVES$200,000
FREESTORE FOODBANK$40,000
LASALLE HIGH SCHOOL$10,000
SETON HIGH SCHOOL$10,000
THE JEFF RUBY FOUNDATION$5,000
CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
BIG BROTHERSBIG SISTERS OF GREATER CINCINNATI$3,000
SAINT URSULA ACADEMY$2,500
ST XAVIER HIGH SCHOOL$2,500
INNER CITY YOUTH OPORTUNITIES$1,250
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 (FY25–25, $6k) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 12%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 12%CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND: $5k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPORTUNITIES: $1k → 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.

94%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$656k · 8 repeat orgs$44k to everyone else

8 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 3 since wound down; 6 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
2

Total granted

$656k
$15k

Still filing today

38%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 90% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $29k went to new ones.

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

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

’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesRecreation & SportsFood & NutritionPhilanthropyOther
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

  • CG
    CINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVES FOR YOUTH
    3× · 2022–2024 · $264k · revenue +154% · 39% of their budget
  • FF
    FREESTORE FOODBANK INC
    3× · 2023–2025 · $80k · revenue +18%
  • TB
    THE BRIDGE ADAPTIVE SPORTS & RECREATION
    3× · 2022–2024 · $20k · revenue +542%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2024 · $10k
  • MS
    MOUNT ST JOSEPH
    one grant, 2024 · $5k
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

7 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. 7 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.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
7/7
Grantees still filing
5/7
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVES: $240,000 · OtherCINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVESTHE BRIDGE ADAPTIVE SPORTS & RECREATION: $20,000 · OtherTHE BRIDGE ADAPTIVE SPORTS & RECREATIONLASALLE HIGH SCHOOL: $20,000 · OtherLASALLE HIGH SCHOOLST URSULA ACADEMY OF CINCINNATI INC: $17,500 · Other+7 more: $48,000 · Other+7 moreCINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVES FOR YOUTH: $263,500 · Recreation & SportsCINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVES FOR YOUTHFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $80,000 · Food & NutritionFREESTORE FO…Clovernook Center For the Blind and Visually Impaired: $5,000 · Human ServicesINNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $1,250 · Human ServicesTHE JEFF RUBY FOUNDATION: $5,000 · Philanthropy
Other$345,500Recreation & Sports$263,500Food & Nutrition$80,000Human Services$6,250Philanthropy$5,000

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 budgetCINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVES FOR YOUTH: $263,500 over 3y, 39% of budgetFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $80,000 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetTHE BRIDGE ADAPTIVE SPORTS & RECREATION: $20,000 over 3y, 6.0% of budgetClovernook Center For the Blind and Visually Impaired: $5,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF GREATER CINCINNATI INC: $3,000 over 1y, 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 CINCINNATI GOLDEN GLOVES FOR YOUTH ↗
  • Who funds FREESTORE FOODBANK INC ↗
  • Who funds THE BRIDGE ADAPTIVE SPORTS & RECREATION ↗
  • Who funds THE JEFF RUBY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds Clovernook Center For the Blind and Visually Impaired ↗
  • Who funds BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF GREATER CINCINNATI INC ↗
  • Who funds INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES ↗

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.

The Greater Cincinnat…Andrew Jergens Founda…Johnson Charitable Gi…Ge Aerospace Foundati…American Endowment Fo…The Bank of America C…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
The Greater Cincinnati FoundationOH21.3× affinity8 shared granteesties to 8 of 8Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · Andrew Jergens Foundation · Johnson Charitable Gift Fund · Ge Aerospace Foundation · American Endowment Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc · 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 Larosa Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Larosa Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%3%10%23%40%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%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 · 0–5%
    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 Larosa Family Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Larosa Family 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 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-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 Larosa Family’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