Skip to content
The Lefevre Foundation at a glance

· Public charity

The Lefevre Foundation

Supporting organization; furtherance of art, history, technology education, community health, youth programs and community benefiting projects as a supporting organization to and for the community purposes of the licking county foundation

$858k
Granted FY2024still arriving
8
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$300k
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 2024.

Arts & Culture$1.9MEducation$923kYouth Development$511kPublic Safety & Disaster$300kCommunity Improvement$140kHousing & Shelter$120kFood & Nutrition$45kHealth$30kOther$0
02FY2024 · 8 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k4 grants · $113k
  • $50k–250k3 grants · $445k
  • $250k+1 grant · $300k
$120,000
Median grant
1
States reached
$35M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
AMERICAN RED CROSS OF EAST CENTRAL OHIO$300,000
NEWARK CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT FUND$200,000
LICKING COUNTY FOUNDATION$125,000
NEWARK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS$120,000
ST VINCENT HAVEN$40,000
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY MID OHIO$30,000
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY-NEWARK$22,500
GRANVILLE OHIO HISTORICAL SOCIETY$20,000
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 (FY23–24, $60k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 0% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Its grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ST VINCENT HAVEN: $40k → 10%ST VINCENT HAVEN: $20k → 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.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 39% of The Lefevre Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address. By recipient address, 100% of the giving stays in OH; by stated purpose, 56%.

The Lefevre Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 12% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$3.3M · 11 repeat orgs$798k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +56% since the first grant, against -96% for those funded once.

11 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

11
2

Total granted

$3.3M
$456k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+56%
-96%

Still filing today

91%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 60% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $343k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
Arts & CultureYouth DevelopmentHuman ServicesEducationCommunity ImprovementFood & 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

  • LC
    LICKING COUNTY FOUNDATION
    5× · 2018–2024 · $1.1M · revenue +63% · 54% of their budget
  • NC
    NEWARK CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT FUND
    5× · 2019–2024 · $900k · revenue +6%
  • TW
    THE WORKS - OHIO CENTER FOR HISTORY ART & TECHNOLOGY
    5× · 2018–2022 · $776k · revenue +56%

Funded once

  • TR
    The Rock Foundation
    one grant, 2017 · $431k · revenue -96% · 92% of their budget
  • LC
    LICKING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES
    one grant, 2018 · $25k
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
Community Shelter Board

The community shelter board is ending homelessness by creating collaborations, innovating solutions, and investing in quality programs.

—
2
Lutheran Social Services of Central Ohio Delaware Housing Inc

See schedule oto create a better world by serving people in need by operating food pantries, homeless shelters, a domestic violence shelter, affordable housing communities, senior living, assisted living and skilled care facilities, a home…

—
3
Licking County Coalition for Housing Inc

Through partnership, guiding those in need to sustainable housing.

Housing & Shelter
4
Greater Cleveland Volunteers

Greater cleveland volunteers enriches the community and indivuduals through volunteer service. volunteers age 18 and older are recruited and placed in the agency's programs or referred to local nonprofit or public organizations to help…

Philanthropy
5
Global Cleveland

Global cleveland is dedicated to growing northeast ohio's economy by welcoming and connecting international people to opportunities and fostering a more inviting community for those seeking a place to call home.

Human Services
6
Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce

Advancing a thriving central ohio commmunity by serving as a catalyst for all businesses to grow and flourish. our mission pillars are connections, government relations, strategic business solutions and talent/workforce.

—
7
The Affordable Housing Trust for Columbus and Franklin County

Facilitate and invest in developments designed to: create and preserve affordable homeownership and rental housing; strengthen and stabilize neighborhoods; support working households, seniors and special needs populations.

Housing & Shelter
8
Portage Development Board

To coordinate and promote economic development on a county wide basis among all of the political subdivisions of portage county, ohio.

Public Benefit
9
Empowering and Strengthening Ohio's People Inc

Empowering and strengthening ohio's people (esop) helps adults in all stages of life achieve and maintain financial wellness and housing stability.

Housing & Shelter
10
United Way of North Central Ohio Inc

At united way of north central ohio, we bring people, organizations, and resources together to create solutions that improve the lives of every person in every community in our region.

—
11
Central Ohio Workers Center Inc

The Central Ohio Worker Center is a non-profit organization that educates, empowers, and advocates for and with low-wage and immigrant workers in Central Ohio.

Civil Rights
12
Ashland Assisted Living Inc

To create a better world by serving people in need by operating food pantries, homeless shelters, a domestic violence shelter, affordable housing communities, senior living, assisted living and skilled care facilities, a home health care…

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The Works - Ohio Center for History Art & Technology; the most unlike its peers is The Rock Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network

14 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. 14 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.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/14
Grantees still filing
11/14
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

LICKING COUNTY FOUNDATION: $1,065,000 · OtherLICKING COUNTY FOUNDATIONHABITAT FOR HUMANITY - MIDOHIO: $60,000 · Other+5 more: $117,500 · Other+5 moreNEWARK CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT FUND: $900,000 · EducationNEWARK CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT…THE WORKS - OHIO CENTER FOR HISTORY ART & TECHNOLOGY: $775,800 · Arts & CultureTHE WORKS - OHIO CENTER …NEWARK MIDLAND THEATRE ASSOCIATION: $100,000 · Arts & CultureNEWARK MIDLAND THEATRE A…The Rock Foundation: $430,500 · Youth DevelopmentThe Rock Found…BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF COLUMBUS INC: $80,000 · Youth DevelopmentBOYS AND GIRLS…American National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $300,000 · Human ServicesAmerican N…ST VINCENT DE PAUL HOUSING FACILITIES INC: $60,000 · Human ServicesST VINCENT…NEWARK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS: $139,737 · Community ImprovementTHE FOOD PANTRY NETWORK OF LICKING COUNTY: $45,000 · Food & Nutrition
Other$1,242,500Education$900,000Arts & Culture$875,800Youth Development$510,500Human Services$360,000Community Improvement$139,737Food & Nutrition$45,000

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 budgetLICKING COUNTY FOUNDATION: $1,065,000 over 5y, 54% of budgetNEWARK CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT FUND: $900,000 over 5y, 6.1% of budgetTHE WORKS - OHIO CENTER FOR HISTORY ART & TECHNOLOGY: $775,800 over 5y, 8.2% of budgetThe Rock Foundation: $430,500 over 1y, 92% of budgetAmerican National Red Cross & Its Constituent Chapters and Branches: $300,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetNEWARK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS: $139,737 over 2y, 5.8% of budgetNEWARK MIDLAND THEATRE ASSOCIATION: $100,000 over 5y, 1.9% of budgetBOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF COLUMBUS INC: $80,000 over 4y, 0.4% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY - MIDOHIO: $60,000 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetST VINCENT DE PAUL HOUSING FACILITIES INC: $60,000 over 2y, 2.4% of budgetTHE FOOD PANTRY NETWORK OF LICKING COUNTY: $45,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetCENTER FOR DISABILITY SERVICES: $30,000 over 3y, 0.8% of budgetGRANVILLE OHIO HISTORICAL SOCIETY: $20,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetLICKING COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY: $20,000 over 2y, 0.8% 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.

The Lindorf Family Fo…Licking Memorial Heal…Licking County Founda…The Patricia R and He…The John and Mary Alf…Energy Cooperative Ro…Park National Corpora…The O'Neill FoundationThe Englefield Founda…Columbus FoundationCecil Mauger Charitab…Denison University
The Lindorf Family FoundationOH30.6× affinity12 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Lindorf Family Foundation · Licking Memorial Health Foundation · Licking County Foundation Inc · The Patricia R and Herbert J Murphy Foundation · The John and Mary Alford Foundation · Energy Cooperative Roundup Foundation Inc · Park National Corporation Foundation · The O'Neill Foundation · The Englefield Foundation · Columbus Foundation · Cecil Mauger Charitable Trust · Denison University

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 Lefevre Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Lefevre Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    9report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    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 Lefevre Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to The Lefevre 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 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Lefevre’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