Skip to content
Tr Uw Otto Luedeking at a glance

· Public charity

Tr Uw Otto Luedeking

Trust assets are invested to provide income to be distributed to the charities named in the governing document.

$717k
Granted FY2025still arriving
14
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$61k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Human Services$1.2MHealth$504kRecreation & Sports$116kEducation$74kPhilanthropy$58kReligion$58kAnimals$39k
02FY2025 · 14 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 14 grants below total $353,400, the rows itemized in this filing. The $716,773 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $363,373 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k13 grants · $293k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $61k
$20,204
Median grant
2
States reached
$13M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES$60,561
THE SALVATION ARMY$40,374
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FNDN$40,374
BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER$40,374
CINCINNATI FDTN FOR THE AGED$20,204
EMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER$20,204
CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER$20,204
THE CHILDRENS HOME OF CINCINNATI OHIO INC$20,204
YWCA OF GREATER CINCINNATI$20,204
CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND$20,204
BEECHWOOD HOME$20,187
ST JOHNS UNITARIAN CHURCH$10,102
OHIO HUMANE SOCIETY FAMILIES FORWARD$10,102
GREATER CINCINNATI FOUNDATION$10,102
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 (FY20–25, $1.0M) land where the poverty rate runs at 16%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%THE CHILDRENS HOME OF CINCINNATI OHIO INC: $21k → 16%THE CHILDRENS HOME OF CINCINNATI OHIO INC: $20k → 16%THE CHILDRENS HOME OF CINCINNATI OHIO INC: $19k → 16%THE CHILDRENS HOME OF CINCINNATI: $19k → 16%THE CHILDRENS HOME OF CINCINNATI OHIO INC: $19k → 16%THE CHILDRENS HOME OF CINCINNATI: $18k → 16%CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND: $21k → 16%CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND: $20k → 16%CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND: $19k → 16%CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND: $19k → 16%CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND: $19k → 16%CLOVERNOOK CENTER FOR THE BLIND: $18k → 16%BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER: $42k → 16%BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER: $40k → 16%BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER: $38k → 16%BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER: $37k → 16%BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER: $37k → 16%BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER: $36k → 16%YWCA OF GREATER CINCINNATI: $21k → 16%EMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER: $21k → 16%YWCA OF GREATER CINCINNATI: $20k → 16%EMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER: $20k → 16%YWCA OF GREATER CINCINNATI: $19k → 16%EMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER: $19k → 16%YWCA OF GREATER CINCINNATI: $19k → 16%EMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER: $19k → 16%EMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER: $19k → 16%YWCA OF GREATER CINCINNATI: $19k → 16%YWCA OF GREATER CINCINNATI: $18k → 16%EMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER: $18k → 16%MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES: $63k → 16%MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES: $61k → 16%MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES: $57k → 16%MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES: $56k → 16%MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES: $55k → 16%MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES: $55k → 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.

Grants abroad, by region: $363k on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 1 region. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$363k · 100% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: GENERAL SUPPORT 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0 PROJECT/PROGRAM SUPPORT 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0 PROJECT/PROGRAM SUPPORT 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING/SUPPORT 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0 PROJECT/PROGRAM SUPPORT 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0 PROJECT/PROGRAM SUPPORT 0 0 0 ANNUAL FUND 0 0 0 GENERAL OPERATING 0 0 0

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. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

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

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.9M · 17 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

17 repeat relationships: 13 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

17
0

Total granted

$1.9M
$0

Still filing today

65%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

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

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

’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthAnimalsPhilanthropyOther
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

  • MK
    MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES INC
    6× · 2020–2025 · $347k · revenue +7%
  • BA
    BEECH ACRES
    6× · 2020–2025 · $231k · revenue +3%
  • TU
    THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION
    4× · 2022–2025 · $157k · revenue +3%

Funded once

    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
    The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati
    Philanthropy
    2
    Cleveland Christian Home Inc

    The Cleveland Christian Home, Inc. exists to be a haven of hope for children, youth, and families struggling with mental illness, abuse, and neglect in Northeast Ohio.

    Religion
    3
    The Cincinnati Woman's Club Foundation
    —
    4
    Foundation for Cincinnati Jewish Seniors formerly Jewish Home of Cincinnati Inc
    Health
    5
    Cincinnati Shoulder and Elbow Research and Education Foundation Inc
    Health
    6
    The Christ Hospital

    Improve the health of our community and create patient value by providing exceptional outcomes and the finest experiences, all in an affordable way.

    Health
    7
    Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services

    To ensure people with mental illness, addiction, and related challenges lead healthy and productive lives.

    Health
    8
    The Greater Cincinnati Television Educational Foundation

    To strengthen the communities we serve through programs and services that inspire and inform, educate and engage, fostering citizenship and culture, the joy of learning and the power of diverse perspectives.

    Arts & Culture
    9
    Fotofocus Cincinnati
    Arts & Culture
    10
    The Christ Hospital Foundation

    The mission of the christ hospital foundation ('tch fdn') is to support the mission of the christ hospital ('tch'). tch's mission is to improve the health of our community and create patient value by providing exceptional outcomes and the…

    Health
    11
    Convalescent Hospital Fund for Children

    The purpose of convalescent hospital fund for children is to provide financial support and otherwise operate for the benefit and support of cincinnati children's hospital medical center. cincinnati children's hospital medical center's…

    Health
    12
    University of Cincinnati Physicians Inc

    Ucp organizes, manages, and delivers the clinical activities and professional medical services of the faculty of the university of cincinnati college of medicine.

    —
    How this is measured
    The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Children's Hospital Medical Center; the most unlike its peers is The Cincinnati Foundation for the Aged. 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

    13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2026.

    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 2026, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 13 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)
    2
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    12/13
    Grantees still filing
    12/13
    Grew since first funded

    Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

    MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES INC: $346,553 · Human ServicesMAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES INCBEECH ACRES: $231,035 · Human ServicesBEECH ACRESYWCA of Greater Cincinnati: $115,616 · Human ServicesYWCA of Greater CincinnatiThe Children's Home of Cincinnati Ohio: $115,616 · Human ServicesThe Children's Home of Cincinnati OhioEmanuel Community Center DBA Cincinnati Squash Academy: $115,616 · Human ServicesEmanuel Community Center DBA Cincinnati Squash AcademyClovernook Center For the Blind and Visually Impaired: $115,616 · Human ServicesClovernook Center For the Blind and Visually ImpairedTHE SALVATION ARMY: $157,464 · OtherTHE SALVATION ARMYTHE CINCINNATI FOUNDATION FOR THE AGED: $115,616 · OtherTHE CINCINNATI FOUNDATION …SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORP: $73,571 · OtherSALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CO…UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: $55,398 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATIST JOHNS LUTHERAN CHURCH: $39,400 · OtherST JOHNS LUTHERAN CHURCHST JOHN'S UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CHURCH: $18,409 · OtherBEECHWOOD HOME: $115,521 · HealthBEECHWOOD HOM…CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $78,799 · HealthCHILDREN'S HO…The Childrens Hospital: $36,817 · HealthThe Childrens…THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $157,464 · PhilanthropyTHE UNIVERSI…THE GREATER CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $57,809 · PhilanthropyTHE GREATER …THE CHILDREN'S PROTECTIVE SERVICE OF THE OHIO HUMANE SOCIETY DBA FAMILIESFORWARD: $57,809 · Animals
    Human Services$1,040,052Other$459,858Health$231,137Philanthropy$215,273Animals$57,809

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

    25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetMAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES INC: $346,553 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetBEECH ACRES: $231,035 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetTHE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $157,464 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetYWCA of Greater Cincinnati: $115,616 over 6y, 0.4% of budgetThe Children's Home of Cincinnati Ohio: $115,616 over 6y, 0.1% of budgetTHE CINCINNATI FOUNDATION FOR THE AGED: $115,616 over 6y, 1.2% of budgetEmanuel Community Center DBA Cincinnati Squash Academy: $115,616 over 6y, 6.1% of budgetClovernook Center For the Blind and Visually Impaired: $115,616 over 6y, 0.3% of budgetBEECHWOOD HOME: $115,521 over 6y, 0.2% of budgetCHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER: $78,799 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetTHE CHILDREN'S PROTECTIVE SERVICE OF THE OHIO HUMANE SOCIETY DBA FAMILIESFORWARD: $57,809 over 6y, 1.0% of budgetTHE GREATER CINCINNATI FOUNDATION: $57,809 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetThe Childrens Hospital: $36,817 over 2y, 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 MAPLE KNOLL COMMUNITIES INC ↗
    • Who funds BEECH ACRES ↗
    • Who funds THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI FOUNDATION ↗
    • Who funds YWCA of Greater Cincinnati ↗
    • Who funds The Children's Home of Cincinnati Ohio ↗
    • Who funds THE CINCINNATI FOUNDATION FOR THE AGED ↗
    • Who funds Emanuel Community Center DBA Cincinnati Squash Academy ↗
    • Who funds Clovernook Center For the Blind and Visually Impaired ↗
    • Who funds BEECHWOOD HOME ↗
    • Who funds CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ↗
    • Who funds THE CHILDREN'S PROTECTIVE SERVICE OF THE OHIO HUMANE SOCIETY DBA FAMILIESFORWARD ↗
    • Who funds THE GREATER CINCINNATI FOUNDATION ↗
    • Who funds The Childrens Hospital ↗

    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…The Thomas J Emery Me…Ge Aerospace Foundati…Unnewehr Family Found…Hcs FoundationL & L Nippert Charita…Jack J Smith Jr Chari…Sutphin Family Founda…Louise Taft Semple Fo…Andrew Jergens Founda…John a Schroth Family…Donor Advised Charita…
    The Greater Cincinnati FoundationOH17.1× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: The Greater Cincinnati Foundation · The Thomas J Emery Memorial · Ge Aerospace Foundation · Unnewehr Family Foundation · Hcs Foundation · L & L Nippert Charitable Foundation Inc Attn Carter F Randolph Phd · Jack J Smith Jr Charitable Trust · Sutphin Family Foundation Ica · Louise Taft Semple Foundation · Andrew Jergens Foundation · John a Schroth Family Char Tr · Donor Advised Charitable Giving 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 Tr Uw Otto Luedeking funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Tr Uw Otto Luedeking. 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%8%15%22%30%share of the org’s income from government →
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get 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 · 0–30%
      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 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 Tr Uw Otto Luedeking’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