Skip to content
Timberhill Ltd Foundation Corp at a glance

· Private foundation

Timberhill Ltd Foundation Corp

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.

$24k
Granted FY2021
11
Grants FY2021
3
States reached
$6k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead

Read this first · the figures below need context

100% of Timberhill Ltd Foundation Corp’s FY2023 grant dollars went to The Greater Cincinnati Foundation, not to grantees.

Its money now reaches organizations through that sponsor, which does not report who recommended each grant. FY2023 names 0 organizations directly, so a portfolio cannot be read from it. Everything below is therefore FY2021, the last year Timberhill Ltd Foundation Corp named its own grantees at scale: 10 organizations, $24k. It is dated, not current.

Organizations named directly on the return

9
’17
8
’18
9
’19
6
’20
10
’21
0
’22
0
’23

Amber years are those where most dollars went to a sponsor.

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 2023.

Philanthropy$423kYouth Development$31kFood & Nutrition$21kEmployment$15kAnimals$9kHealth$6kHuman Services$2kEducation$2kOther$0
02FY2021 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$1,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$0
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES$6,000
FREE STORE FOOD BANK$4,000
CINCINNATI WORKS$4,000
LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES$2,500
GOOD SAMARITAN FREE HEALTH CENTER$1,500
BLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL$1,000
PETS IN NEED OF GREATER CINCINNATI$1,000
CRAYONS TO COMPUTERS$1,000
GREENWOOD WILDLIFE REHABILITATION$1,000
TRISTATE VETERANS COMMUNITY ALLIANCE$1,000
OUR DAILY BREAD$1,000
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 (FY17–21, $39k) 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%LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $3k → 16%LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $2k → 16%LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: $2k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $6k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $6k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $3k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $3k → 16%INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $1k → 16%CINCINNATI WORKS: $4k → 16%CINCINNATI WORKS: $3k → 16%CINCINNATI WORKS: $3k → 16%CINCINNATI WORKS: $2k → 16%CINCINNATI WORKS: $2k → 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.
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 7% of Timberhill Ltd Foundation Corp’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Timberhill Ltd Foundation Corplessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address
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.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$81k · 12 repeat orgs$4k to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 10 still active in FY2021, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2021 (too recent to call). Read against FY2021, the last year this funder named its own grantees directly; its giving has since run through a sponsor, which reports no donor behind each grant.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
4

Total granted

$81k
$3k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+61%
+190%

Still filing today

83%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2021, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’18’19’20’21
Human ServicesFood & NutritionAnimalsYouth DevelopmentEmploymentEnvironmentOther
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

  • IC
    INNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES
    5× · 2017–2021 · $18k · revenue +75%
  • FF
    FREESTORE FOODBANK INC
    5× · 2017–2021 · $17k · revenue +61%
  • CW
    CINCINNATI WORKS
    5× · 2017–2021 · $14k · revenue +19%

Funded once

  • AC
    ARTWORKS CINCINNATI
    one grant, 2018 · $1k
  • LS
    LA SOUPE INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $1k · revenue +589%
  • DF
    Dress for Success Cincinnatigraduated
    one grant, 2017 · $600 · revenue +73%
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
Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati

To resolve serious legal problems of low income people, to promote economic and family stability, and reduce poverty through effective legal assistance.

—
2
Cain Cincy

Tranforms lives inspiring hope by providing nutritious food,crisis assistance,resources and compassion that respects human dignity building a more vibrant community. feeding bodies and souls through its choice food pantry,weekly community…

Religion
3
Greater Cleveland Food Bank Inc

Working together to ensure everyone in our communities has the nutritious food they need every day.

Food & Nutrition
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
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
6
Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Michigan Inc

Goodwill provides exceptional opportunities for people facing employment barriers.

—
7
Digitalc

Empower the people of greater cleveland to achieve success through technology, innovation and connected community.

Community Improvement
8
Ywca Dayton

YWCA Dayton is dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women and promoting peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all.

—
9
Glean Kentucky Inc

Glean kentucky nourishes kentucky's hungry by rescuing and redistributing surplus fresh foods.

Food & Nutrition
10
Community Shelter Board

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

—
11
Tri-State Food Bank

Tri-state food bank, inc solicits, warehouses, and disburses donated and purchased food products to other not-for-profit entities in indiana, illinois, and kentucky.

—
12
Goodwill Industries of Greater Cleveland and East Central Ohio Inc

We empower people on their journey to independence through the sale of donated goods, which supports employment programs and family services.

—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Freestore Foodbank Inc; the most unlike its peers is Tristate Veterans Community Alliance. 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

16 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. 16 of the 18 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)
8
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/16
Grantees still filing
15/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

THE GREATER CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $423,029 · PhilanthropyTHE GREATER CINCINNATI FOUNDATION+1 more: $1,500 · PhilanthropyINNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $18,000 · Human ServicesCINCINNATI WORKS: $14,000 · Human ServicesLIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES: $6,500 · Human ServicesFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $16,500 · Food & NutritionBLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL: $1,000 · Food & NutritionLA SOUPE INC: $1,000 · Food & NutritionGOOD SAMARITAN FREE HEALTH CENTER: $5,500 · OtherTristate Veterans Community Alliance: $2,100 · OtherOUR DAILY BREAD: $2,000 · OtherARTWORKS CINCINNATI: $1,250 · OtherGREENWOOD WILDLIFE REHABILITATION CENTER: $5,000 · AnimalsPets in Need of Greater Cincinnati Inc: $3,600 · AnimalsBOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INC: $4,000 · Youth DevelopmentFREEDOM A LA CART: $2,050 · Youth DevelopmentDress for Success Cincinnati: $600 · EmploymentKeep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc: $500 · Environment
Philanthropy$424,529Human Services$38,500Food & Nutrition$18,500Other$10,850Animals$8,600Youth Development$6,050Employment$600Environment$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 budgetTHE GREATER CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $423,029 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetINNER CITY YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES: $18,000 over 5y, 2.5% of budgetFREESTORE FOODBANK INC: $16,500 over 5y, 0.0% of budgetCINCINNATI WORKS: $14,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetLIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES: $6,500 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetGREENWOOD WILDLIFE REHABILITATION CENTER: $5,000 over 5y, 0.1% of budgetPets in Need of Greater Cincinnati Inc: $3,600 over 4y, 0.2% of budgetTristate Veterans Community Alliance: $2,100 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetFREEDOM A LA CART: $2,050 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetOUR DAILY BREAD: $2,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetCRAYONS AND BEYOND INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetBLUE MOUNTAIN ACTION COUNCIL: $1,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLA SOUPE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetDress for Success Cincinnati: $600 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKeep Cincinnati Beautiful Inc: $500 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.

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…Elsa M Heisel Sule Ch…Ge Aerospace Foundati…Charles H Dater Found…John a Schroth Family…Carol Ann and Ralph V…Trust Estate of Georg…L & L Nippert Charita…Robert H & Susan F Ca…Johnson Charitable Gi…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…The Bank of America C…
The Greater Cincinnati FoundationOH19× affinity7 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · Elsa M Heisel Sule Charitable Trust 2005 · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Charles H Dater Foundation Inc · John a Schroth Family Char Tr · Carol Ann and Ralph V Haile Jr Foundation · Trust Estate of George B Riley · L & L Nippert Charitable Foundation Inc Attn Carter F Randolph Phd · Robert H & Susan F Castellini Foundation · Johnson Charitable Gift Fund · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · The Bank of America Charitable Foundation Inc

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

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%13%25%38%50%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    6report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–50%
    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 18 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 2021, released 2021. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Timberhill Ltd’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