Skip to content

· Private foundation

Oral Reconstruction Foundation

Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$292k
Granted FY2024still arriving
36
Grants FY2024still arriving
21
States reached
$185k
Largest
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.

Health$1.1MEducation$305kYouth Development$5kCommunity Improvement$5kEmployment$3kRecreation & Sports$2kHuman Services$500Arts & Culture$422
02FY2024 · 36 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k35 grants · $107k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $185k
$3,000
Median grant
21
States reached
$347k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
New Horizon Institute Inc$185,000
Diane Jenkins Periodontics of Corgaree$6,500
Individual grant recipient$6,000
Warren Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Associates LLC$6,000
Alpha Omega Study Club$6,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
The Wagner Centre LLC$5,000
Individual grant recipient$5,000
Vista Verde Dental Parners LLC$4,500
Individual grant recipient$4,500
Individual grant recipient$4,000
Individual grant recipient$4,000
Individual grant recipient$4,000
TT Boynton DMD Inc$3,647
Individual grant recipient$3,500
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 (FY20–20, $500) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, 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%Home Start Hope: $500 → 14%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.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
ID
IL
WI
MI
NY
MA
OR
NV
SD
IA
IN
OH
PA
NJ
CA
UT
CO
NE
KY
VA
MD
AZ
TN
NC
SC
LA
AL
GA
TX
FL
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 Oral Reconstruction Foundation’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

Oral Reconstruction Foundationlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 2.0% 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.

76%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.1M · 18 repeat orgs$348k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +87% since the first grant, against +35% for those funded once.

18 repeat relationships: 7 still active in FY2024, 11 since wound down; 29 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

18
77

Total granted

$1.1M
$261k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+87%
+35%

Still filing today

11%
9%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 70% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $88k went to new ones.

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

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

’17’20’21’22’23’24
HealthEducationCommunity ImprovementHuman ServicesOther
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

  • NH
    NEW HORIZON INSTITUTE INC
    5× · 2020–2024 · $925k · revenue +87%
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    5× · 2020–2024 · $42k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    3× · 2020–2022 · $21k

Funded once

  • LP
    Lincoln Park Dental Specialists
    one grant, 2022 · $26k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2023 · $18k
  • AC
    Affordable Care Holding Corp
    one grant, 2023 · $17k
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
Bronx County Dental Society

To encourage dental health

—
2
Omaha District Dental Society

Dental membership soc &education seminar

—
3
North Carolina Dental Society 5TH District

To encourage the improvement of the oral health of the public, to promote the art and science of dentistry and to encourage the maintenance of high standards of professional competenece and practice, and to represent the interests of the…

Community Improvement
4
New York Academy of Dentistry Inc

Promote technical advances within the dentistry profession.

—
5
Nassau Academy of Dentistry

Provide educational opportunities for the members of the dental profession. promote improvement in the oral health of the public disseminate the achievements of the science and art of dentistry to the general public. conduct programs for…

—
6
Greater St Louis Dental Society Educational Foundation

The greater st. louis dental society educational foundation (the "foundation") supports the education and advancement of the profession of dentistry by supporting the greater st. louis dental society (the "society"). the society is one of…

Health
7
St Paul District Dental Society Inc

To promote education and health literacy for the public by providing educational opportunities for dental hygiene students, dental assistant students and pre-dental students.

—
8
North Texas Dental Society

Continuing education, recruitment, and dental care for dentists

Community Improvement
9
Hartford Dental Society Inc

Primary purpose - to cultivate the art and science of dentistry, elevate and sustain the professional character of its members, and disseminate knowledge pertaining to the advancement of health.

—
10
Dent Disease Foundation

Collect and distribute research on dent disease

Health
11
Diverse Dental Society

Our mission is to achieve equity in oral health as a vital component of overall health for marginalized communities through education, service, and advocacy.

Health
12
American Student Dental Association

The American Student Dental Association is a national student-run organization that protects and advances the rights, interests and welfare of dental students. It introduces students to lifelong involvement in organized dentistry and…

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dental Forum of Milwaukee Inc; the most unlike its peers is New York University. 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

9 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. 9 of the 124 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)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
9/9
Grantees still filing
7/9
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

NEW HORIZON INSTITUTE INC: $925,000 · HealthNEW HORIZON INSTITUTE INC+2 more: $2,500 · HealthIndividual grant recipient: $42,250 · OtherIndividual grant recipientLincoln Park Dental Specialists: $26,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $20,700 · OtherIndividual grant recipient: $18,050 · Other+113 more: $395,071 · Other+113 moreNew York University: $16,500 · EducationDENTAL FORUM OF MILWAUKEE INC: $1,000 · EducationPima Dental Study Club Inc: $700 · Community ImprovementHOME START HOPE: $500 · Human Services
Health$927,500Other$502,071Education$17,500Community Improvement$700Human Services$500

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

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetNEW HORIZON INSTITUTE INC: $925,000 over 5y, 6.6% of budgetNew York University: $16,500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAPOLLONIAN STUDY CLUB: $3,200 over 2y, 4.6% of budgetNEW ORLEANS LAWN TENNIS CLUB: $2,484 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCAPE FEAR DENTAL STUDY CLUB INC: $1,500 over 1y, 2.6% of budgetDENTAL FORUM OF MILWAUKEE INC: $1,000 over 1y, 0.7% of budgetSTARRY FOUNDATION: $1,000 over 1y, 0.5% of budgetPima Dental Study Club Inc: $700 over 1y, 1.3% of budgetHOME START HOPE: $500 over 1y, 0.6% 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 NEW HORIZON INSTITUTE INC ↗
  • Who funds New York University ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Oral Reconstruction Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Oral Reconstruction Foundation. 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%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    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 Oral Reconstruction Foundation?

    Find your warmest path to Oral Reconstruction 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 124 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 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Oral Reconstruction’s filings →

    More from the funding graph