Skip to content
Upper Arlington Rotary Charitable Foundation C/O Andrew Livingston at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Upper Arlington Rotary Charitable Foundation C/O Andrew Livingston

To encourage and foster the service ideal of service above self.

$134k
Granted FY2025still arriving
6
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$65k
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 2025.

International$691kEducation$188kPhilanthropy$137kHousing & Shelter$31kHuman Services$30kReligion$19kFood & Nutrition$8kYouth Development$7kOther$0
02FY2025 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $112,167, the rows itemized in this filing. The $133,892 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $21,725 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

  • Under $10k3 grants · $18k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $29k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $65k
$12,500
Median grant
2
States reached
$289k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
NATUN GUATEMALA$65,000
UPPER ARLINGTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRIC$16,667
BONSFORGOOD CHARITIES INC$12,500
SANTA'S SILENT HELPERS OF COLUMBUS$6,000
UPPER ARLINGTON LUTHERAN CHURCH$6,000
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE CHARITIES OF$6,000
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 (FY18–23, $37k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, 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%HOMELESS FAMILIES FOUNDATION: $10k → 15%HOMELESS FAMILIES FOUNDATION: $10k → 15%YWCA OF COLUMBUS: $6k → 15%YWCA COLUMBUS: $6k → 15%HOMELESS FAMILIES FOUNDATION: $6k → 15%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.

91%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$871k · 7 repeat orgs$86k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +27% since the first grant, against -8% for those funded once.

7 repeat relationships: 5 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
9

Total granted

$871k
$80k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+27%
-8%

Still filing today

71%
78%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 95% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

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

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesHealthInternationalPhilanthropyEducationRecreation & SportsOther
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

  • BC
    BONZY CHARITIES INC
    4× · 2022–2025 · $43k · revenue +314%
  • TH
    THE HOMELESS FAMILIES FOUNDATION
    3× · 2020–2023 · $25k · revenue +27%
  • YW
    YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
    2× · 2018–2021 · $12k · revenue +136%

Funded once

  • W
    WCBE
    one grant, 2021 · $27k
  • CC
    CENTRAL CITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
    one grant, 2019 · $8k
  • HY
    Highland Youth Garden Inc
    one grant, 2023 · $8k · revenue -18%
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
Ohio United Way

To strengthen the capacity of United Ways across Ohio and to advance the common good for Ohioans.

Philanthropy
2
Ronald McDonald House Charities - Upper Midwest

We, in partnership with our community, provide a comfortable and caring home away from home that supports keeping families together and reduces stress during a child's serious illness.

Health
3
Ohio Alliance of Ymca's

We are a grassroots driven and governed organization that advocates and educates on behalf of the YMCAs and its mission, upholding the four core YMCA values of caring, honestly, respect, and responsibility. The Alliance also fosters…

Community Improvement
4
Columbus Housing Initiative Inc

Stabilize neighborhoods through establishing financing, education, rehabilitation of existing housing and development of new housing

Housing & Shelter
5
Philanthropy Ohio

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

Philanthropy
6
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Cleveland

Create and support one-to-one mentoring relationships that ignite the power and promise of youth.

Youth Development
7
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.

—
8
United Way of Greater Lima Inc

United Way improves lives by uniting the caring power of our community.

—
9
Upward Unlimited Foundation

To accelerate the mission of Upward Unlimited by creating fundraising opportunities for individuals, institutions, and other non-profits to invest in the Upward Unlimited mission thereby overcoming risks and challenges due to lack of…

—
10
Healthpath Foundation of Ohio

Helping all ohioans to reach their fullest health potential.

Health
11
Residential Opportunities Inc

We partner with children and adults with disabilities and their families so they may live more meaningful, healthy, and independent lives in their homes and communities.

Human Services
12
FutureHeights Inc

FutureHeights seeks to inspire and facilitate collaboration and empowerment across our communities to ensure a vibrant and sustainable future for Cleveland Heights and University Heights.

Arts & Culture
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is The 2ND and 7 Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Bonzy Charities Inc. 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

15 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. 15 of the 19 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)
2
Early backer (in before they grew)
15/15
Grantees still filing
8/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NATUN GUATEMALA: $654,534 · InternationalNATUN GUATEMALATHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $36,965 · InternationalTHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONALUPPER ARLINGTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT: $112,902 · OtherUPPER ARLINGTON CITY…WCBE: $27,360 · OtherWCBESantas Silent Helpers of Columbus Inc: $12,000 · OtherSantas Silent Helper…UPPER ARLINGTON LUTHERAN CHURCH: $11,400 · OtherUPPER ARLINGTON LUTH…CENTRAL CITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: $7,500 · OtherBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF CENTRAL OHIO INC: $7,357 · OtherTHE 2ND AND 7 FOUNDATION: $6,800 · Other+3 more: $17,020 · Other+3 moreUPPER ARLINGTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $137,475 · Community ImprovementUPPER ARLINGT…BONZY CHARITIES INC: $42,780 · EducationTHE HOMELESS FAMILIES FOUNDATION: $25,402 · Human ServicesYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $12,040 · Human ServicesBUDDY UP FOR LIFE INC: $6,185 · HealthThe Bridge Corp: $6,000 · HealthHighland Youth Garden Inc: $7,500 · Food & Nutrition
International$691,499Other$202,339Community Improvement$137,475Education$42,780Human Services$37,442Health$12,185Food & Nutrition$7,500

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 budgetNATUN GUATEMALA: $654,534 over 9y, 31% of budgetUPPER ARLINGTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $137,475 over 5y, 7.9% of budgetBONZY CHARITIES INC: $42,780 over 4y, 12% of budgetTHE ROTARY FOUNDATION OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL: $36,965 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTHE HOMELESS FAMILIES FOUNDATION: $25,402 over 3y, 0.2% of budgetYOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $12,040 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetSantas Silent Helpers of Columbus Inc: $12,000 over 2y, 5.5% of budgetHighland Youth Garden Inc: $7,500 over 1y, 1.4% of budgetBIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF CENTRAL OHIO INC: $7,357 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetTHE 2ND AND 7 FOUNDATION: $6,800 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetBUDDY UP FOR LIFE INC: $6,185 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetThe Bridge Corp: $6,000 over 1y, 0.8% of budgetRonald McDonald House Charities of Central Ohio Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetHABITAT FOR HUMANITY - MIDOHIO: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUPPER ARLINGTON EDUCATION FOUNDATION: $5,020 over 1y, 1.2% 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.

Columbus FoundationHarry C Moores Founda…Safelite FoundationIngram-White Castle F…Jpmorgan Chase Founda…American Electric Pow…The William H Davis D…Columbus Jewish Found…United Way of Central…Nisource Charitable F…Gs Donor Advised Phil…M I Homes Foundation
Columbus FoundationOH34.6× affinity16 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Columbus Foundation · Harry C Moores Foundation · Safelite Foundation · Ingram-White Castle Foundation · Jpmorgan Chase Foundation · American Electric Power Foundation · The William H Davis Dorothy M Davis and William C Davis Foundation · Columbus Jewish Foundation · United Way of Central Ohio Inc · Nisource Charitable Foundation · Gs Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc · M I Homes 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 Upper Arlington Rotary Charitable Foundation C/O Andrew Livingston funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Upper Arlington Rotary Charitable Foundation C/O Andrew Livingston. 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    8report 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 Upper Arlington Rotary Charitable Foundation C/O Andrew Livingston?

    Find your warmest path to Upper Arlington Rotary Charitable Foundation C/O Andrew Livingston 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 19 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 Upper Arlington Rotary Charitable Foundation C/O Andrew Livingston’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